Die Widerlegungen der Beweise für dunkle Zahlen

24 views
Skip to first unread message

Ganzhinterseher

unread,
Sep 4, 2022, 8:37:40 AMSep 4
to

Fritz Feldhase

unread,
Sep 4, 2022, 8:50:42 AMSep 4
to
On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 2:37:40 PM UTC+2, Ganzhinterseher wrote:

> Die bisher bekannten Widerlegungen dunkler Zahlen findet man hier: [...]

Um irgendetwas bezüglich "dunkler Zahlen" widerlegen oder beweisen zu können, müsste der Begriff /dunkle Zahl/ erst einmal (im Kontext einer mathematischen Theorie) definiert sein.

Wir erinnern uns: "[WM’s] conclusions are based on the sloppiness of his notions, his inability of giving precise definitions, his fundamental misunderstanding of elementary mathematical concepts, and sometimes, as the late Dik Winter remarked [...], on nothing at all."





Fritz Feldhase

unread,
Sep 4, 2022, 8:54:49 AMSep 4
to
On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 2:50:42 PM UTC+2, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 2:37:40 PM UTC+2, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
>
> > Die bisher bekannten Widerlegungen dunkler Zahlen findet man hier: [...]
>
> Um irgendetwas bezüglich "dunkler Zahlen" widerlegen oder beweisen zu können, müsste der Begriff /dunkle Zahl/ erst einmal (im Kontext einer mathematischen Theorie) definiert sein.

In den Worten David C. Ullrichs: "It's hard to impossible to give a counteragument to a proof that just makes no sense, for example using undefined terms... if I said that "hjhjhjqrt" proves the Riemann hypothesis what would you say?"

Matt E.: "A proof of the existence of an object when the object itself has not yet been defined does not make for a convincing proof."

Ganzhinterseher

unread,
Sep 4, 2022, 9:18:15 AMSep 4
to
Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Sonntag, 4. September 2022 um 14:54:49 UTC+2:
> On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 2:50:42 PM UTC+2, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 4, 2022 at 2:37:40 PM UTC+2, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> >
> > > Die bisher bekannten Widerlegungen dunkler Zahlen findet man hier: [...]
> >
> > Um irgendetwas bezüglich "dunkler Zahlen" widerlegen oder beweisen zu können, müsste der Begriff /dunkle Zahl/ erst einmal (im Kontext einer mathematischen Theorie) definiert sein.
> In den Worten David C. Ullrichs: "It's hard to impossible to give a counteragument to a proof that just makes no sense, for example using undefined terms... if I said that "hjhjhjqrt" proves the Riemann hypothesis what would you say?"

Dies zeigt, dass Du lügst und Ullrich unbelesen oder denkunfähig ist. Bekannt ist seit Jahren die Definition: A natural number is "identified" or (individually) "defined" or "instantiated" if it can be communicated such that sender and receiver understand the same and can link it by a finite initial segment to the origin 0.

Dunkle Zahlen sind solche, die nicht diesem Kriterium unterliegen.
>
> Matt E.: "A proof of the existence of an object when the object itself has not yet been defined does not make for a convincing proof."

Ja, der hat es auch noch nicht verstanden, vielleicht noch nie gesehen.

Gruß, WM



Message has been deleted

Gus Gassmann

unread,
Sep 4, 2022, 9:25:42 AMSep 4
to
On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 10:18:15 UTC-3, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> [...]
> A natural number is "identified" or (individually) "defined" or "instantiated" if it can be communicated such that sender and receiver understand the same and can link it by a finite initial segment to the origin 0.

If you quote without attribution, I demand that at least you get the definition right. A number is "instantiated (at time t)" if it has been used by somebody (up to time t). That gives a rigorous definition and is more stringent than your gobbledygook. *EVERY* natural number can be "link[ed] it by a finite initial segment to the origin". And do make up your mind once and for all whether the origin in your system is 0 or 1. Once you do that, please stick to your convention. You might otherwise come across as, well, "not all there". (Oh, wait...)

Gus Gassmann

unread,
Sep 4, 2022, 9:28:52 AMSep 4
to
Naja, in der zweiten Fassung der Frage hast du immerhin kapiert, dass man die Original-Unterschrift entfernen muss, wenn man seine Identität maskieren will.

Ganzhinterseher

unread,
Sep 4, 2022, 9:30:00 AMSep 4
to
Gus Gassmann schrieb am Sonntag, 4. September 2022 um 15:19:26 UTC+2:
> On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 09:37:40 UTC-3, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> > Die bisher bekannten Widerlegungen dunkler Zahlen findet man hier:
> >
> > https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Transfinity/220901%20MO%20Three%20proofs.html
> >
> > https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Transfinity/220903%20MSE%20Dark%20numbers%20edited.html
> Well, at least in the second question you took on board that you should remove your signature when copy-pasting.

Jaro wollte nur den einen Beweis bringen, weil er meinte, dass die Leser sonst überfordert wären. Under Cherries hat einfach alles kopiert. Ich habe darauf keinen Einfluss. Aber offensichtlich waren alle Leser überfordert, denn es geht nicht um die Definition dunkler Zahlen, sondern lediglich um den Verbleib der Brüche ohne Indizes. OOOOO...

Gruß, WM

Ganzhinterseher

unread,
Sep 4, 2022, 9:35:57 AMSep 4
to
Gus Gassmann schrieb am Sonntag, 4. September 2022 um 15:25:42 UTC+2:
> On Sunday, 4 September 2022 at 10:18:15 UTC-3, Ganzhinterseher wrote:
> > [...]
> > A natural number is "identified" or (individually) "defined" or "instantiated" if it can be communicated such that sender and receiver understand the same and can link it by a finite initial segment to the origin 0.
> If you quote without attribution,

Did you invent the word instantiated?

> A number is "instantiated (at time t)" if it has been used by somebody (up to time t)

and has not been forgotten since.

> That gives a rigorous definition and is more stringent than your gobbledygook. *EVERY* natural number can be "link[ed] it by a finite initial segment to the origin".

That is the important property!

> And do make up your mind once and for all whether the origin in your system is 0 or 1. Once you do that, please stick to your convention.

The origin is 0. The first natnumber is 1. That is similar to the age. At time of birth you are not yet one year old.

Regards, WM
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages