May 28th, 2016, 11:14 AM  #1 
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2015 From: England Posts: 662 Thanks: 187  For zylo et al Last edited by skipjack; July 9th, 2016 at 04:32 PM. 
July 9th, 2016, 06:49 PM  #2 
Global Moderator Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 17,919 Thanks: 1385 
Thanks.

July 10th, 2016, 06:34 PM  #3 
Math Team Joined: Jul 2011 From: Texas Posts: 2,624 Thanks: 1305 
Scanning that article left a part in my hair ... 
July 14th, 2016, 04:17 AM  #4 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,134 Thanks: 88 
It is trivially wrong. You can't do finite operations on an infinite set and expect a rational result. Cantor makes the same mistake. The only way to draw rational conclusions about infinite sets is to specify explicitly what each member is or use induction. 
July 14th, 2016, 05:17 AM  #5 
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 1,570 Thanks: 613 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff.  A person who has studied the problem for years and has written and published a peer reviewed paper is trivially wrong? Has this ever happened? I could see such a paper to contain a subtle mistake, it's happened plenty of times before, but not a trivial one. Once again I think you need to review your Mathematics. Dan 
July 14th, 2016, 06:45 AM  #6 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,134 Thanks: 88 
Consider the set of natural numbers. Color the 1st red, the 2nd blue, the 3rd red, the 4th blue, and so on, alternately. Obviously the number of reds and blues are equal. Right? 

Tags 
zylo 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
zylo's Easy Set Postulates  zylo  Topology  29  March 8th, 2016 07:27 AM 
zylo's set postulates  zylo  Topology  53  February 1st, 2016 10:56 AM 
zylo Definition of Empty Set  zylo  Math  3  January 21st, 2016 12:03 AM 
zylo's Axiomatic Set Theory  zylo  Math  16  January 20th, 2016 01:12 PM 