# Point Out An Error

#### ISP

The following thread got closed before I could edit the last post. There is an obvious error in the last post that I would have edited out, so I would like it stated for the record that I never got the chance.

http://mymathforum.com/number-theory/347456-solution-continuum-hypothesis.html

You can call me rude perhaps and I'll address that, but more importantly I would point out that I immediately admitted that I did not solve the continuum hypothesis as early as my second post. Cranks do not admit they are wrong. I also do not care for cranks that don't admit they are wrong, and I do not start such threads other than in jest (where it's clearly labeled 'crankery' for a purpose and where the proper math is sought after).

I don't think I was rude to [email protected], but then again I hang out all day with people that think it's more insulting to know something about ordinals than to not know something about ordinals. If [email protected] has hurt feelings I apologize. Mine got hurt when [email protected] thought I would try to contradict my idols GÃ¶del and Cohen. That was just flat out mean to insinuate I should read them and come back a report on where they are wrong. That was beyond rude I say!!!

There is nothing crankish about this SE question. Discussing it with someone who actually reads and understands it would be nice, but nobody here appears interested enough that is also capable enough. Nobody has said anything is wrong (other than me, which is the exact opposite of crankish), so until I get some actual help from someone that actually wants to help, I won't ever get an answer to my question. [email protected] doesn't want to help and that's fine, but he doesn't need to sit here and be a jerk either.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3432667/enumeration-of-a-very-large-ordinal

#### [email protected]

Mine got hurt when [email protected] thought I would try to contradict my idols GÃ¶del and Cohen.
Dude, the TITLE of your post is "Solution to the continuum hypothesis". The continuum hypothesis is long solved by Godel and Cohen (assuming ZFC axioms). So what other solution are you going to provide?

In your very OP you seem to give an argument "contradicting the definition of omega_1". What else are we supposed to conclude other than you trying to prove or disprove CH in some way?

That was just flat out mean to insinuate I should read them and come back a report on where they are wrong. That was beyond rude I say!!!
Is it rude to ask you to do a bit of background reading before discussing a topic? I mean sure... I don't think that's a rude thing to do. I think it's common sense.

#### ISP

Dude, the TITLE of your post is "Solution to the continuum hypothesis". The continuum hypothesis is long solved by Godel and Cohen (assuming ZFC axioms). So what other solution are you going to provide?

In your very OP you seem to give an argument "contradicting the definition of omega_1". What else are we supposed to conclude other than you trying to prove or disprove CH in some way?

Is it rude to ask you to do a bit of background reading before discussing a topic? I mean sure... I don't think that's a rude thing to do. I think it's common sense.
I immediately admitted failure by saying that I contradicted myself on SE (linked to in my OP), so yeah I was trying to prove or disprove CH and I failed as expected, but I admitted it before anyone else including you (because I had already stated that my work was independent of CH on SE before you made any post here, I just didn't update here).

You know damn well that you don't think I have the capacity for Godel or Cohen and that your recommendation for me to read their work and report as to any errors was not meant to be a helpful comment. I've long understood the results of their work though (that CH is independent of ZFC) and what I'm doing really couldn't be done in ZFC. So, you're a jerk. Whatever.

I don't care if they want to ban me for being rude to jerks or even for being the worst mathematician ever, but it's libel to say I'm a crank because all I ever do is assert I'm wrong. This ain't no 'Donald Trump tried math show' and Greg1313 can try saying that to my face. Punk.

As for you [email protected], you could read the SE thread and actually try what I asked you to. If you assume the non-transfinite option like I said over $\omega$ iterations, then your answer to me will hinge on whether you think $C$ is countable on each iteration. That would be helping if you want stop being a jerk.

#### [email protected]

I immediately admitted failure by saying that I contradicted myself on SE (linked to in my OP), so yeah I was trying to prove or disprove CH and I failed as expected, but I admitted it before anyone else including you (because I had already stated that my work was independent of CH on SE before you made any post here, I just didn't update here).

You know damn well that you don't think I have the capacity for Godel or Cohen and that your recommendation for me to read their work and report as to any errors was not meant to be a helpful comment. I've long understood the results of their work though (that CH is independent of ZFC) and what I'm doing really couldn't be done in ZFC. So, you're a jerk. Whatever.

I don't care if they want to ban me for being rude to jerks or even for being the worst mathematician ever, but it's libel to say I'm a crank because all I ever do is assert I'm wrong. This ain't no 'Donald Trump tried math show' and Greg1313 can try saying that to my face. Punk.

As for you [email protected], you could read the SE thread and actually try what I asked you to. If you assume the non-transfinite option like I said over $\omega$ iterations, then your answer to me will hinge on whether you think $C$ is countable on each iteration. That would be helping if you want stop being a jerk.
You posted here. The forum is here. As a rule, I never open links to SE or any other site. The post should be self-contained here. If the post is better explained on SE, then ask on SE, not here.

You're not a crank because you're often wrong. I'm a mathematician and I'm wrong AAAALL the time. Sometimes embarrassingly wrong. You're a crank because you don't want to put in the work necessary. I wouldn't dare to comment on CH without understanding Godel's stuff or Cohen's stuff in depth. You feel less compelled to understand the entire background. That's why I think you're a crank. It's like somebody posting another FLT proof without doing some basic abstract algebra first. You KNOW it goes nowhere and you KNOW you can't help the guy since he won't try to do anything himself.

I've said often that I'm very willing to help if you do make an effort to learn the background of set theory including Godel's or Cohen's stuff which isn't THAT difficult. But you refuse to do so. Ok, your choice.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### ISP

You posted here. The forums is here. As a rule I never open links to SE or any other site. The post should be self contained here. If the post is better explained on SE, then ask on SE, not here.

You're not a crank because you're often wrong. I'm a mathematician and I'm wrong AAAALL the time. Sometimes embarassingly wrong. You're a crank because you don't want to put in the work necessary. I wouldn't dare to comment on CH without understanding Godel's stuff or Cohen's stuff in depth. You feel less compelled to understand the entire background. That's why I think you're a crank. It's like somebody posting another FLT proof without doing some basic abstract algebra first. You KNOW it goes nowhere and you KNOW you can't help the guy since he won't try to do anything himself.

I've said often that I'm very willing to help if you do an effort to learn the background of set theory including Godel's or Cohen's stuff which isn't THAT difficult. But you refuse to do so. Ok, your choice.
I've worked very hard to create that SE question and I already listed for you in detail all of the things that I had to learn before I could even ask the question (Fodor's lemma, club sets, diagonal intersections, normal functions, fixed points, Veblen ordinals and hierarchy, Church-Kleene ordinal and Kleene O notation, etc.).

I then went on to prove, on my own, that there must exist a $k \in \omega_1$ where $k \in \phi_{\alpha}(k)$ for $2 \leq \alpha < \omega_1$. In fact, I showed that $\{k \in \omega_1 : k \in \phi_{\alpha}(k)\}$ is stationary with respect to $\omega_1$ for each $\alpha \in \omega_1 \setminus \{0,1\}$.

I see that $C$ should be uncountable on each iteration, but that it also can't be because $sup(C)$ must grow larger as $A$ grows and that implies that $sup(C) \in \omega_1$ for each iteration. It's maybe that 'skolem paradox thing' you brought up earlier or maybe I just don't understand, but as of right now, that's what I can't figure out.

I think the functions that I've put together are worth looking at if only for fun, which is all I ever do this for. Again, if you don't want to, that's fine. Don't say I didn't put any work in and stop being a jerk.

Edit: PS - Cranks think they are generally always correct (I assume the opposite always), they think they know more than others who are actual professionals, etc. (my expertise is taxation and I admittedly suck at math), they rarely if ever acknowledge an error on their part (my notation sucks and I need a lot of rough drafts to even get started), and they love to talk about their own beliefs (I have none and am asking for guidance).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

Last edited:

#### skipjack

Forum Staff
The following thread got closed . . .
You can make your point about that in a PM to a moderator, which should be preferred to starting a new thread peppered with words such as "punk".

1 person

#### ISP

You can make your point about that in a PM to a moderator, which should be preferred to starting a new thread peppered with words such as "punk".
Noted and certainly will do next time... if there is one. Thank you.

#### v8archie

Math Team
I've long understood the results of their work though (that CH is independent of ZFC) and what I'm doing really couldn't be done in ZFC.
If you aren't working in ZFC, you aren't doing anything with the Continuum Hypothesis. And the claim that you are looks like crankery. It's no better than those people who claim to disprove Cantor while denying the existence of infinite sets. You can't discuss any result without accepting the assumptions that it makes. You can argue about the assumptions if you like, but that doesn't change th validity of a result that accepts them, because the system that includes those assumptions is a valid system and it's within that system that the result applies - not whatever different system you chose to work in.

#### topsquark

Math Team
It's no better than those people who claim to disprove Cantor while denying the existence of infinite sets.
Oh, don't even say it. It might bring him back.

-Dan

#### ISP

Oh, don't even say it. It might bring him back.

-Dan
I only come here once in a great while to pick at something in particular and then forget about math for very long periods of time, unlike you, who apparently loves torturing scifimath because (and I can only assume) you have no life.