Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

70 views

Skip to first unread message

Sep 2, 2021, 10:08:34 PM9/2/21

to

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.

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.

The links are here:

www.jamesrmeyer.com/infinite/lebesgue-measure.html

And:

www.jamesrmeyer.com/infinite/understand-infinity-and-limits.html

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.

The links are here:

www.jamesrmeyer.com/infinite/lebesgue-measure.html

And:

www.jamesrmeyer.com/infinite/understand-infinity-and-limits.html

Sep 3, 2021, 8:00:32 AM9/3/21

to

Every interval I -- "complete" or not -- of A has *rational* endpoints, namely n/m +/- 10^(-k) for suitable n, m and k. That the endpoints of I have further intervals constructed around them (which intersect I and are therefore *not* complete) is immaterial.

I did not try to make sense of the rest. In my opinion, the author is a crank, and I have no inclination to pursue this further.

Sep 3, 2021, 12:30:38 PM9/3/21

to

The author makes many mistakes. He does not ensure that the endpoints are irrational, and his definition of a "complete interval" is faulty.

However, these errors can be corrected. The basic problem is that he only considers limits of endpoints to be "between the intervals".

And indeed this set is countable. He does not consider limits of limits, or limit of limits of limits, and so forth, including "limits of limits of limits of ..."

Essentially the same argument was presented by WM.

--

William Hughes

However, these errors can be corrected. The basic problem is that he only considers limits of endpoints to be "between the intervals".

And indeed this set is countable. He does not consider limits of limits, or limit of limits of limits, and so forth, including "limits of limits of limits of ..."

Essentially the same argument was presented by WM.

--

William Hughes

Sep 3, 2021, 2:52:31 PM9/3/21

to

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
> 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.

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.

have a feeling it would be like water off a duck's back.

Regards,

Mike.

Sep 3, 2021, 3:47:55 PM9/3/21

to

Feb 28, 2023, 12:44:36 PM2/28/23

to

On Friday, September 3, 2021 at 2:52:31 PM UTC-4, Mike Terry wrote:

> 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,

Coming to this late after starting an exchange with this guy.
> 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,

I have been doing just what you say (check the most recent

comments on JMR Lebesgue Measure page). I have whittled

it down to a very simple example and somehow he still does

not get it. I am baffled but still think we can get him to see

this. Or, if he does not (and refuses to) then make his

assumptions very clear (e.g. perhaps he will say I cannot refer

to an infinite sequence of intervals, which seem strange

because he does so himself).

Can you give a reference to the WM discussion of this particular

argument?

Mar 1, 2023, 12:33:34 PM3/1/23

to

The first time it came up, I think:

sci.logic 29/5/12 Subject: Matheology § 022

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/b2txw8tfFzU/m/no9zlOFnQGgJ

Then it came up again several years later:

sci.logic 22/11/18 Covering all rational points by irrational intervals

msgid: <0259e7d8-951c-4e52...@googlegroups.com>

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/0Dzy1OjA0Aw/m/rI0lCm4FAwAJ

and [this was a biggie thread!]

sci.logic 31/12/18 Clusters and Cantor dust

msgid: <df87465e-8633-4ba0...@googlegroups.com>

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/5A6TuGC5UCg/m/l3v6K9bcFQAJ

WM has had a few aliases he has used over the years: If you see WM, ganzhintersehen, transfinity*

are all WM.

Regards,

Mike.

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu