On 03/09/2021 03:08, Iosephus Granicae wrote:
> I occasionally saw a webpage claiming that there's inherent paradox inside Lebesgue Measure Theory, where he constructs a perfect set with positive measure and being nowhere dense, while he claims that the set cannot have positive measure, because it consists of "denumerable" "singular isolated points", hence the paradox occurs.
This is rather strange - his argument /exactly/ mirrors one of WM's
arguments, which has been discussed on sci.math multiple times. And he
has exactly the same "blind spot" mistake WM always makes! Both WM and
JMR claim that the set only contains points which are end points of the
"complete intervals" of the complement set. That is simply not the
case, as can be demonstrated by constructing simple counter examples,
although I doubt it would be possible to get WM or JMR to accept those.
So the claim that the set is denumerable doesn't hold water - neither WM
nor JMR offer any actual /proof/, just wishy-washy wordy arguments and
unsupported claims. I'd even suspect WM and JMR were the same person,
except that both have independent records on the internet, so I don't
think that's the case. Probably
The web page is littered with examples of crank language, which is a bit
of a give-away:
- ...according to /conventional mathematics/..
- ...Some people when faced with this /unpalatable contradiction/ make
the /bizarre attempt/...
- ...somehow (although exactly how is /never divulged/)...
- ...welcome to /fantasy land/...
- ...their /beloved/ Lebesgue Theory...
[italics added by me]
and so on. Practically every other line screams CRANK. :)
> And also he claims he solved that "paradox" with "limiting condition", but he hasn't provide any sound and unambiguous definition about that concept.
> Maybe someone with similar opinion can contact him.
If you want to point out his errors, why don't /you/ email him? But I
have a feeling it would be like water off a duck's back.