# Point Out An Error

#### ISP

If you aren't working in ZFC, you aren't doing anything with the Continuum Hypothesis.
ZFC is independent of CH, so if you are working in ZFC, then you aren't doing anything with CH.

And the claim that you are looks like crankery.
Had I not immediately said I was wrong it would have been.

It's no better than those people who claim to disprove Cantor while denying the existence of infinite sets.
You need the axiom of infinity though, so I don't get it. You assume axioms and then make your proof based on the axioms, so it's not a disproof to deny someone the axioms needed to do their proof. That makes no sense.

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 the 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
Agreed.

not whatever different system you chose to work in.
My tuplets of ordinals don't behave like sets in that they can have multiple of the same element and they always have a specific order. That's different than ZFC, but I told [email protected] that converting my tuplets to sets could perhaps allow for a similar theory in ZFC (then Godel and Cohen would apply). I make use of 'likewise computable' (as defined in my SE question) tuplets that contain, e.g., $\omega_1^{CK}$ copies of the same ordinal, so you can't just assume this is readily convertible to a model of ZFC.

#### v8archie

Math Team
ZFC is independent of CH, so if you are working in ZFC, then you aren't doing anything with CH.
That is not the meaning of "independent". As has been stated elsewhere, CH can be neither proven nor disproven under ZFC - this much we know. You can happily decide to accept it or not and continue under ZFC.

This is analagous to Euclid's 5th postulate. It can be neither proven nor disproven under the geometry of the first four postulates. That doesn't mean that if you are using the first four postulates you aren't doing anything with the 5th. Indeed, for most applications you have to determine what form of the postulate you are going to accept and continue from there in flat, spherical or hyperbolic space as appropriate, so you are actively using it.

#### ISP

Yes, we are saying the same thing V8, that CH is independent with respect to ZFC (meaning CH is unprovable from ZFC, as ZFC + CH and ZFC - CH are both consistent assuming ZFC is consistent). I hope that helps you. I really want people that are capable to look at my theory. This is why I didn't want Maschke posting, because we'd go on for 5 pages like this.

I make no assumption as to CH and am still able to carry out my theory. If my theory - CH leads to a contradiction but my theory + CH does not, and there is nothing wrong with my theory otherwise, then that would be a way to prove CH I think (but on that I assume I may be wrong).

Last edited:

#### OOOVincentOOO

Can I get some attention

** I really want people that are capable to look at my theory. **
What are you complaining about? You at least get tons of attention and responses on you're project.

I fortunately got some advice and now and then a thanks from idontnow. But that was it.

My project â€œWave Divisor Functionâ€ might not be fancy mathematics with a lot of symbols. And complicated math.

Yes, I sometimes think I am doing something special. But one moment euphorically, next down in the gutter. Greg responded by closing my topic. That was a correct call; I was almost manic ("finding the Dirichlet divisor growth error").

I am doing most with virtual responses in my weird head cool::unsure::furious. But that works fine for me!

I am overall happy how MMF responds / reacts to my investigation. But I still believe the Wave Divisor Function is an original approach to the divisor count! Although I donâ€™t understand it.

Best regards,

Vince

Last edited by a moderator:

#### ISP

What are you complaining about? You at least get tons of attention and responses on you're project.
They don't actually read it though. Except for Maschke, I'm fairly certain nobody has even attempted to read my work. tl;dr

They are happy to assume the work is wrong if the result is wrong (and that is usually a safe assumption). They love to gang up on cranks and others who are willing to take on the forum, but they lose interest real quick when responding involves more than just a quick "Cantor shows this" or "Cohen shows that."

Edit: PS, I tried to look over yours. If I was capable of helping you, I would have. I took Calc I, II, and III many years ago and don't remember much of main-stream math, notation, etc. I only play with logic and set theory now days as a hobby when I'm bored.

Last edited:
1 person

#### [email protected]

They don't actually read it though. Except for Maschke, I'm fairly certain nobody has even attempted to read my work. tl;dr

They are happy to assume the work is wrong if the result is wrong (and that is usually a safe assumption). They love to gang up on cranks and others who are willing to take on the forum, but they lose interest real quick when responding involves more than just a quick "Cantor shows this" or "Cohen shows that."
Not entirely incorrect. Indeed, if somebody sets off claiming a result that is known for decades to be wrong, then I am happy to assume the result is wrong. If you're going to start saying you disproved CH, or disproved the uncountability of omega_1 or whatever, then I immediately assume it's incorrect and there is a mistake somewhere.
I definitely plead guilty to being entertained by dealing with cranks. I really do love it a lot. But I'm fair too, I give them a chance. I gave you a chance too. I told you what you had to do and to read in order to take the discussion further. You neglected to do it and just kept pushing your own stuff. Then I couldn't do anything more useful to you, and I just kept on amusing myself.

My replies were correct however. Cohen and Godel did show your OP completely false. You know this better than I. So why waste time on it? Why the need to trick me into replying with reverse psychology and flattering: 'I bet you won't find out what's wrong. You're a very good mathematician and I'm sure you can help me'. This is manipulative behavior and not worthy of a decent discussion on any math forum. In a few threads you admitted making grandiose claims in order just to get replies (which actually worked). If you're going to put in this kind of behavior, I can respond in the manner I did. You were never prepared to have a professional conversation about this and to learn all you could. So why should I waste my time?

#### ISP

Not entirely incorrect. Indeed, if somebody sets off claiming a result that is known for decades to be wrong, then I am happy to assume the result is wrong. If you're going to start saying you disproved CH, or disproved the uncountability of omega_1 or whatever, then I immediately assume it's incorrect and there is a mistake somewhere.
I definitely plead guilty to being entertained by dealing with cranks. I really do love it a lot. But I'm fair too, I give them a chance. I gave you a chance too. I told you what you had to do and to read in order to take the discussion further. You neglected to do it and just kept pushing your own stuff. Then I couldn't do anything more useful to you, and I just kept on amusing myself.

My replies were correct however. Cohen and Godel did show your OP completely false. You know this better than I. So why waste time on it? Why the need to trick me into replying with reverse psychology and flattering: 'I bet you won't find out what's wrong. You're a very good mathematician and I'm sure you can help me'. This is manipulative behavior and not worthy of a decent discussion on any math forum. In a few threads you admitted making grandiose claims in order just to get replies (which actually worked). If you're going to put in this kind of behavior, I can respond in the manner I did. You were never prepared to have a professional conversation about this and to learn all you could. So why should I waste my time?
You are one of the few here I think is actually capable of helping me.

What do you want me to read? (I am already familiar with Godel and Cohen).

I'm not trying to manipulate you. I just have a sense of humor. By all means, you shouldn't assume I disproved or proved CH in a few lines... I thought that was obvious though. It's not meant to be a trick.

I push my own stuff because I'm learning at my own pace and have a focus on something. It's for fun. I don't have any realistic expectation of proving anything great. Thinking I'm delusional may be fun for you and I'm happy to let you (or anyone) do so if it means they'll give my work some attention, but I'm not actually delusional, so we can't do the whole zylo or scifimath thing with me. Sorry if that disappoints you or anyone else.

I will post my SE thread here if you want to honestly take a crack at my question and read it. That's up to you though. I would appreciate it, but I don't expect you to waste your time here and on me if you have better things to do. That I can respect. Just say so.

#### ISP

PS - I said if you could convert my ordinal tuplets to sets (this will be tough in ZFC due my use of likewise computable tuplets), then we could apply Godel and Cohen. That isn't obvious and so no, I told you already, it's not readily agreeable that your assertion even has anything to do with my work [email protected] That's wrong on your part. Not a big deal, but don't be as delusional as the cranks. You can help me if you want, but you will have to role up your sleeves.

#### topsquark

Math Team
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.
Sorry for the confusion. I was talking about zylo, not you. I don't actually have issues with you.

And actually, no, I don't have much of a life!

-Dan

Last edited:
1 person

#### greg1313

Forum Staff
My replies were correct however. Cohen and Godel did show your OP completely false. You know this better than I. So why waste time on it? Why the need to trick me into replying with reverse psychology and flattering: 'I bet you won't find out what's wrong. You're a very good mathematician and I'm sure you can help me'. This is manipulative behavior and not worthy of a decent discussion on any math forum. In a few threads you admitted making grandiose claims in order just to get replies (which actually worked). If you're going to put in this kind of behavior, I can respond in the manner I did. You were never prepared to have a professional conversation about this and to learn all you could. So why should I waste my time?
Or mine. I ban you - and I believe I was justified in doing so - and you return with the same sort of stuff. Maybe I'm just a tool who needs to get a life but you, sir, are a velvet-coated crank.

So go ahead and amuse yourself - but don't expect me to take a back seat when it comes to moderating this forum.

And I do believe in second chances - take yours while you have it.

Last edited:
1 person