Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #639398 > unrolled thread
| Started by | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-07-30 19:29 +0200 |
| Last post | 2025-08-09 07:35 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 268 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-07-30 19:29 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-30 19:09 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-07-30 14:03 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-07-30 17:17 -0400
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-07-31 16:04 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-07-31 17:34 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-31 15:53 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-07-31 18:56 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-01 18:23 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-01 19:44 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-02 12:40 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 11:15 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 11:33 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-02 14:54 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 12:59 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 13:03 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-02 12:51 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-02 22:46 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-02 20:20 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-02 20:39 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-03 12:55 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-03 13:04 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-04 12:37 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-04 12:22 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-04 21:29 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-04 12:41 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-04 21:44 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-04 12:52 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-04 22:34 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-05 15:44 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-03 13:06 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-04 12:39 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-04 14:29 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-04 16:45 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-04 20:19 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-04 22:37 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-05 08:22 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-05 12:10 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-04 20:36 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-04 22:45 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-05 08:28 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-05 12:16 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-05 21:41 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-08-05 18:41 -0400
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-05 16:23 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-06 19:16 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-05 15:39 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-05 15:48 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-05 14:13 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-05 16:30 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-05 17:09 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-05 17:37 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-05 19:56 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-05 19:21 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-05 22:01 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-05 21:33 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-06 12:10 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-06 19:11 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-06 16:17 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-08-06 19:25 -0400
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-08-06 19:29 -0400
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-06 16:42 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-06 12:43 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-06 16:56 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-06 16:59 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-06 19:34 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-06 20:12 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-07 19:06 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-07 21:20 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-08 20:39 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-06 16:23 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-08-10 23:31 +0100
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-11 01:38 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-11 02:02 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-11 16:25 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 21:37 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 21:50 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-11 12:28 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-11 16:05 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-11 15:56 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 19:40 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-11 17:02 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-11 22:24 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-11 22:57 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-12 00:27 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-12 15:20 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-12 15:10 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-12 13:16 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-12 16:24 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-12 15:27 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-12 17:59 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-12 15:30 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-06 19:03 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-06 17:46 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-06 18:00 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-06 22:35 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-06 16:38 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-07 17:37 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-07 18:20 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-07 12:48 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-07 22:03 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-07 22:43 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-07 21:01 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-08 14:23 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-08 13:00 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-08 22:41 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-08 20:47 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-08 22:53 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-09 15:15 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-09 15:10 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-08 20:53 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-09 15:26 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-09 13:37 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-09 18:32 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-09 11:10 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-08 14:32 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-09 15:13 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-09 11:08 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-09 11:13 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 22:21 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-07 22:32 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-07 13:47 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-08 00:50 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-07 16:53 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-08 00:25 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-09 11:11 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-10 15:08 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 07:51 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 08:08 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 12:56 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-11 15:44 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-11 12:37 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-11 16:16 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-12 14:04 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-12 16:40 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-12 16:41 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-12 15:28 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-12 17:56 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-12 18:15 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-12 18:17 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-12 21:58 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-12 22:45 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-13 16:53 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-12 18:11 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-12 17:15 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-12 22:19 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-12 22:35 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-13 16:58 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-13 17:01 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-13 15:06 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-14 00:24 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Hugh Kalambetov <ahuebbl@htlhkm.ru> - 2025-08-14 09:34 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-14 13:00 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-14 12:33 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-14 15:01 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-14 13:40 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-14 16:08 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-14 14:18 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-15 14:59 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-15 13:59 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-15 17:21 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-15 17:29 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-15 21:30 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 13:23 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-15 18:03 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-15 16:45 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-15 18:52 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-16 00:10 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 22:25 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 13:57 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-16 13:55 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-16 14:26 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-15 15:00 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-15 17:27 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-13 16:48 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-13 16:13 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-13 16:23 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-13 19:10 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-14 14:38 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-14 12:42 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-14 15:33 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-15 15:04 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-15 13:38 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-15 19:01 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 10:04 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-15 17:36 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-16 13:46 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-16 12:11 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-16 14:29 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-16 14:27 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-16 18:25 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-17 06:06 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-17 12:44 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-16 16:54 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-16 17:01 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-16 18:29 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-17 12:40 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-16 14:24 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-14 14:24 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-14 15:42 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-15 15:37 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-13 17:37 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-14 14:51 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-08-14 11:02 -0400
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 11:23 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-14 00:43 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-14 00:57 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-14 14:56 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-14 13:09 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-14 13:12 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-14 17:54 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-14 17:57 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-14 18:06 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-14 15:55 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-14 17:43 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-14 17:56 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-14 18:03 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-15 01:10 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-15 17:55 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-15 16:03 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-15 18:44 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-15 18:58 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-15 23:45 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 20:52 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 09:57 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-16 14:08 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 13:48 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 17:04 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-11 16:44 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-11 17:16 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-11 17:18 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-11 17:28 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-11 17:42 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-12 01:57 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-12 01:57 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-11 18:38 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-11 22:42 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-12 15:16 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-11 22:47 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-12 02:00 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-12 02:01 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-07 00:11 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-06 16:35 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-06 22:19 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-06 16:38 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-06 16:28 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-06 16:19 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-05 15:47 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-06 19:19 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-06 17:31 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-07 00:58 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> - 2025-08-07 00:58 +0200
Ben Bacarisse's "debunking" attempt WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-18 16:07 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-02 15:03 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 13:17 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-02 13:24 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-02 19:39 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-08-02 20:12 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-07-31 15:28 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-31 13:35 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-07-31 16:49 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-07-31 14:53 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-07-31 11:52 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> - 2025-07-31 22:55 +0200
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-07-31 13:58 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-09 07:11 -0700
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-08-09 14:15 +0000
Re: Conquer the Binary Tree Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-08-09 07:35 -0700
Page 8 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 14 Next page →
| From | Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-12 21:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107g6dm$3cnm5$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639628 |
Am 12.08.2025 um 17:56 schrieb Moebius:
> Am 12.08.2025 um 17:28 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
>
>>> They will never cover the matrix. (WM)
>>
>> Of course they can. There are an uncountably << countably?
>
>> infinite number of them,just as there are an uncountably << countably?
>
>> infinite number of cells in the matrix.
>> Thus there is a 1-1 correspondence between them, i.e. a covering.
>
>>> That nonsense notion may fit, but they will never cover the matrix.
>>
>> Moebius has demonstrated such a covering explicitly.
>
> Even a PROPER SUBSET of the set of natural numbers suffice to "cover"
> the "matrix".
>
> We just may consider the "matrix" (a_n,m)_(n,m e IN) defind with
>
> a_n,m = 2^n * 3^m (for all n,m e IN).
>
> It's easy to show that for any n,m,n',m' with (n,m) =/= (n',m'): a_n,m
> =/= a_n',m'. (And it's clear that {2^n * 3^m e IN : n,m e IN} is a
> proper subset of IN.)
>
> It seems to me that Mückenheim must reject most of basic modern maths
> stuff (as well as logical and/or coherent thinking, of course) in his
> crusade against "set theory".
>
> "One wonders by what [Mückenheim] would like to replace the mathematics
> created in the last 2500 years; if one takes Prof. Mückenheim seriously,
> then a fitting picture for the last page of this book ["The mathematics
> of infinity"] would be the Ishango bone." (Franz Lemmermeyer)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishango_bone
Actually, WM's "argument" would as well concern the following TRIVIAL case:
The prime numbers will never "cover" a 1 x IN "matrix" (i.e. a
sequence). So there can't be an infinite sequence (2, 3, 5, 7, ...) of
prime numbers.
After all there are as many terms in a sequence as natural numbers: a_1,
a_2, a_3, ... (in other words, the index set of an infinite sequence is
IN), but there are far less prime numbers (than natural numbers), so HOW
CAN THEY cover ALL "places" a_1, a_2, a_3, ... in the sequence?!
> .
> .
> .
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-12 22:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107g95f$3hed8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639636 |
Am 12.08.2025 um 21:58 schrieb Moebius: > Actually, WM's "argument" would as well concern the following TRIVIAL case: > > The prime numbers will never "cover" a 1 x IN "matrix" (i.e. a > sequence). So there can't be an infinite sequence (2, 3, 5, 7, ...) of > prime numbers. > > After all there are as many terms in a sequence as natural numbers: a_1, > a_2, a_3, ... (in other words, the index set of an infinite sequence is > IN), but there are far less prime numbers (than natural numbers), so HOW > CAN THEY cover ALL "places" a_1, a_2, a_3, ... in the sequence?! Ah, right, it's even worse: | "there is not even a list of all natural numbers. Therefore there are not even ℵ₀ natural numbers available as indices" (WM) . . .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 16:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107i8ss$3u1e1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639636 |
On 12.08.2025 21:58, Moebius wrote: > Actually, WM's "argument" would as well concern the following TRIVIAL case: > > The prime numbers will never "cover" a 1 x IN "matrix" (i.e. a > sequence). So there can't be an infinite sequence (2, 3, 5, 7, ...) of > prime numbers. > > After all there are as many terms in a sequence as natural numbers: a_1, > a_2, a_3, ... (in other words, the index set of an infinite sequence is > IN), but there are far less prime numbers (than natural numbers), so HOW > CAN THEY cover ALL "places" a_1, a_2, a_3, ... in the sequence?! There are not *all* places. Only the places of visible natnumbers can be occupied. Visible prime numbers are even fewer. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-12 18:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107fp2l$3bhju$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639626 |
On 12.08.2025 17:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: >> On 12.08.2025 16:04, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: >>>> On 11.08.2025 14:37, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: > >>>>>> Alas there are, according to Cantor, |ℕ| natural numbers. Can all be >>>>>> smaller than |ℕ|/2? Hardly. > >>>>> Maybe, just maybe, |ℕ|/2 isn't even defined. > >>>> If |ℕ| is defined as an integer or whole number, .... > >>> It's not. > >> Cantor: "ich nenne deren Ordnungstypen allgemein reale ganze Zahlen." > > What's that got to do with it? |ℕ| is not an integer. Try to learn German. > >>>> Not the definition is lacking. But the numbers between |ℕ|/2 and |ℕ| are >>>> dark. > >>> There are no "dark numbers". > >> You have not yet grasped them. > > In as much as you have defined them, yes I have. The two pertinent > things about a "dark number" are (i) it is an integer; (ii) its value > cannot be pinned down in any way. For most dark numbers, but not for all. > >>> Their non-existence has been proven on this newsgroup at least twice. > >> Liar. > > Please, I don't lie on Usenet, ever. > > The proof I gave runs as follows. Suppose the "dark numbers" are a > non-empty subset of the integers, from (i) above. Then this subset, as > any non-empty subset of the integers, has a least member. This least > member is now defined, pinned down. Some dark numbers can get visible. The reason is the the visible numbers are potentially infinite. There is no strict border. > Therefore, by (ii) above, it can't > be a "dark number". This is a contradiction. Thus there cannot be such > "dark numbers". You assumed a strict border. That would contradict the potentially infinite character of the collection of visible numbers. > >>>> .... for instance the share of indices n/1 within the infinite matrix. >>>> The number of indices n/1 in the first column of an n*n-matrix is n. >>>> Its share in the matrix is n/n^2. Here the limit tells us about the >>>> share of enumerated fractions in the infinite matrix: lim(n-->oo) n/n^2 >>>> = 0. > >>> Well, so what? The proportion of these numbers counted in that way may >>> tend to zero, > >> They will never cover the matrix. > > Of course they can. No. Their relative measure is 0. > There are an uncountably infinite number of them, > just as there are an uncountably infinite number of cells in the matrix. > Thus there is a 1-1 correspondence between them, i.e. a covering. Both are called countably many. > >>> their absolute number in the limit is countably infinite. > >> That nonsense notion may fit, but they will never cover the matrix. > > Moebius has demonstrated such a covering explicitly. When all indices are taken from outside. But when they first are put into the first column, then they fail. What is the reason. > >>> As is the count of all these numbers. They can be put into a 1-1 >>> correspondence, hence they are "the same" size. > >> Not according to mathematical analysis. > > You mean, not according to cranky pseudo-mathematical "analysis". The relative measure can be determined in the first semester. Regards, WM >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-12 17:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107fsqv$ipl$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #639630 |
WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: > On 12.08.2025 17:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: >>> On 12.08.2025 16:04, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: >>>>> On 11.08.2025 14:37, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: >>>>>>> Alas there are, according to Cantor, |ℕ| natural numbers. Can all be >>>>>>> smaller than |ℕ|/2? Hardly. >>>>>> Maybe, just maybe, |ℕ|/2 isn't even defined. >>>>> If |ℕ| is defined as an integer or whole number, .... >>>> It's not. >>> Cantor: "ich nenne deren Ordnungstypen allgemein reale ganze Zahlen." >> What's that got to do with it? |ℕ| is not an integer. > Try to learn German. I've been doing that for several decades. It's a damned difficult language. ;-) >>>>> Not the definition is lacking. But the numbers between |ℕ|/2 and |ℕ| are >>>>> dark. >>>> There are no "dark numbers". >>> You have not yet grasped them. >> In as much as you have defined them, yes I have. The two pertinent >> things about a "dark number" are (i) it is an integer; (ii) its value >> cannot be pinned down in any way. > For most dark numbers, but not for all. You have never satisfactorally defined "dark numbers". All you've ever done is written that some integers are dark numbers, some aren't, and there's no criterion to separate those two cases. >>>> Their non-existence has been proven on this newsgroup at least twice. >>> Liar. >> Please, I don't lie on Usenet, ever. >> The proof I gave runs as follows. Suppose the "dark numbers" are a >> non-empty subset of the integers, from (i) above. Then this subset, as >> any non-empty subset of the integers, has a least member. This least >> member is now defined, pinned down. > Some dark numbers can get visible. The reason is the the visible numbers > are potentially infinite. There is no strict border. In otherwords, "dark numbers" are undefined. You're saying they're an undefinable subset of the integers, I think. >> Therefore, by (ii) above, it can't be a "dark number". This is a >> contradiction. Thus there cannot be such "dark numbers". > You assumed a strict border. That would contradict the potentially > infinite character of the collection of visible numbers. Quatsch! I assumed well known properties of the integers, took your "definition", such as I can discern it, and followed through to the logical consequences. I assumed nothing about "borders". Of course, maybe "dark numbers" aren't integers at all. That would leave you free to be as vague as you like about their properties. [ .... ] > Regards, WM -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-12 22:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107g7ld$3cnm5$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639634 |
Am 12.08.2025 um 19:15 schrieb Alan Mackenzie: > WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: >> On 12.08.2025 17:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: >>>> Cantor: "ich nenne deren Ordnungstypen allgemein reale ganze Zahlen." Cantor: "*ich* nenne ..." ["*I* call ..."] This not "German", but Cantor's TERMINOLOGY concerning some of the notions in his "Transfinite Mengenlehre". <holy shit!> Hint: "Modern set theory" did not adopt all of Cantor's TERMINOLOGY. (See the works of Hessenberg (1906), Hausdorff (1914), Kamke (1928), etc.) ORDINALs (ordinal numbers) are NOT referred to as "allgemein reale ganze Zahlen" these days, as the ASSHOLE Mückenheim knows very well. >>> What's that got to do with it? |ℕ| is not an integer. Right. Using modern terminology: |ℕ| !e Z. Mückenheim loves to play sleight of hand. >> Try to learn German. [WM] Asshole. > I've been doing that for several decades. It's a damned difficult > language. ;-) Try harder. :-P Or read /The Awful German Language/ by Mark Twain. »Meine philologischen Studien haben mich davon überzeugt, dass ein begabter Mensch Englisch (außer Rechtschreibung und Aussprache) in 30 Stunden, Französisch in 30 Tagen und Deutsch in 30 Jahren lernen kann.« . . .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-12 22:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107g8il$3cnm5$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639637 |
Am 12.08.2025 um 22:19 schrieb Moebius:
> Am 12.08.2025 um 19:15 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:
>>> On 12.08.2025 17:28, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:
>
>>>>> Cantor: "ich nenne deren Ordnungstypen allgemein reale ganze Zahlen."
>
> Cantor: "*ich* nenne ..." ["*I* call ..."]
>
> This not "German", but Cantor's TERMINOLOGY concerning some of the
> notions in his "Transfinite Mengenlehre". <holy shit!>
>
> Hint: "Modern set theory" did not adopt all of Cantor's TERMINOLOGY.
> (See the works of Hessenberg (1906), Hausdorff (1914), Kamke (1928), etc.)
>
> ORDINALs (ordinal numbers) are NOT referred to as "allgemein reale ganze
> Zahlen" these days, as the ASSHOLE Mückenheim knows very well.
>
>>>> What's that got to do with it? |ℕ| is not an integer.
>
> Right. Using modern terminology: |ℕ| !e Z.
>
> Mückenheim loves to play sleight of hand.
On the other hand, it's quite funny that Mückenheim referred to the set
of natural numbers _includng 0_ the following way [in his (in)famous
book "Mathematik für die ersten Semester"]:
| Die Menge der Kardinalzahlen ist IN_0 = {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}
<facepalm>
Die /Menge der Kardinalzahlen/ ist sicherlich NICHT gleich IN u {0}.
Ganz abgesehen davon, dass es "Die Menge der Kardinalzahlen" nicht gibt,
as Cantor knew already.
.
.
.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 16:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107i96e$3u1e1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639638 |
On 12.08.2025 22:35, Moebius wrote:
> | Die Menge der Kardinalzahlen ist IN_0 = {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}
>
> Die /Menge der Kardinalzahlen/ ist sicherlich NICHT gleich IN u {0}.
Die Menge der in meinem Buch anerkannten Kardinalzahlen ist genau die
angegebene.
Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 17:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107i9cd$3u1b7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639637 |
On 12.08.2025 22:19, Moebius wrote: > Am 12.08.2025 um 19:15 schrieb Alan Mackenzie: > ORDINALs (ordinal numbers) are NOT referred to as "allgemein reale ganze > Zahlen" these days, as Mückenheim knows very well. I even know why this is not liked. >>> Try to learn German. [WM] >> I've been doing that for several decades. It's a damned difficult >> language. ;-) > > Try harder. :-P > Or read /The Awful German Language/ by Mark Twain. > > »Meine philologischen Studien haben mich davon überzeugt, dass ein > begabter Mensch Englisch (außer Rechtschreibung und Aussprache) in 30 > Stunden, Französisch in 30 Tagen und Deutsch in 30 Jahren lernen kann.« > How lucky to be born in Germany. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <jp@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 15:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <FZLRVc2cpVAWsGABs85Lpqp4VPA@jntp> |
| In reply to | #639649 |
Le 13/08/2025 à 17:01, WM a écrit : > On 12.08.2025 22:19, Moebius wrote: >> Am 12.08.2025 um 19:15 schrieb Alan Mackenzie: > >> ORDINALs (ordinal numbers) are NOT referred to as "allgemein reale ganze >> Zahlen" these days, as Mückenheim knows very well. > > I even know why this is not liked. > >>>> Try to learn German. [WM] > >>> I've been doing that for several decades. It's a damned difficult >>> language. ;-) >> >> Try harder. :-P >> Or read /The Awful German Language/ by Mark Twain. >> >> »Meine philologischen Studien haben mich davon überzeugt, dass ein >> begabter Mensch Englisch (außer Rechtschreibung und Aussprache) in 30 >> Stunden, Französisch in 30 Tagen und Deutsch in 30 Jahren lernen kann.« >> > How lucky to be born in Germany. A student is definitely not lucky if she or he had the misfortune to have you, crank Wolfgang Mückenheim, from Hochschule Augsburg as a "teacher" i.e. an abuser.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Moebius <invalid@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 00:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107j3b9$4kpl$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639650 |
Am 13.08.2025 um 17:06 schrieb Python: > Le 13/08/2025 à 17:01, WM a écrit : >> On 12.08.2025 22:19, Moebius wrote: >>> ORDINALs (ordinal numbers) are NOT referred to as "allgemein reale >>> ganze Zahlen" these days, as Mückenheim knows very well. >> >> I even know why this is not liked. Actually, he knows shit, this idiot. @Mückenheim: It's "not liked" because we want to be able to differentiate between the set of all /whole numbers/ (=positive integers including zero), i. e. IN_0, and the class (hint: not a set!) of all ordinal numbers. <facepalm> . . .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Kalambetov <ahuebbl@htlhkm.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 09:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107kaid$d6rt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639655 |
Moebius wrote: > Am 13.08.2025 um 17:06 schrieb Python: >> Le 13/08/2025 à 17:01, WM a écrit : >>> On 12.08.2025 22:19, Moebius wrote: > >>>> ORDINALs (ordinal numbers) are NOT referred to as "allgemein reale >>>> ganze Zahlen" these days, as Mückenheim knows very well. >>> >>> I even know why this is not liked. > > Actually, he knows shit, this idiot. > > @Mückenheim: It's "not liked" because we want to be able to > differentiate between the set of all /whole numbers/ (=positive integers > including zero), i. e. IN_0, and the class (hint: not a set!) of all > ordinal numbers. <facepalm> please be careful, the only reason you have integers is for numbering. If you cant numbering, thats not integer. 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮_𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀_𝗪𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱_𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲_𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺__𝗙𝗦𝗕_𝗩𝗜𝗗𝗘𝗢 Moscow’s forces have struck industrial sites producing Ukrainian Sapsan long-range missiles, the agency said https://r%74.com/ru%73sia/622868-russia-derails-ukraine-missile-program/ Trump is paying for that war. Nobody cares what he likes. USA, the lying pig, just wanted a temporary cease fire so Ukraine could mobilize what they have received from West and then strike Russia. But that trick apparently didn’t work either. Oh dear, the Banderas and their Western financiers are so utterly stupid. ISK1: The Rheinmetall arms concern, owned by Black Rock, was unable to build a plant in Ukraine due to corruption. Greedy Ukrainian officials wanted everything at once. They wanted to make the missiles of the German Sapsan project themselves, demanding that Germany hand over the drawings and technology. As a result, there was no plant, no missiles. And everything that was somehow connected with production and design was destroyed. Take all east of Dnjepr and Odessa too, landlocked nazi-Ukraine is doomed, and Oreshnics on Ramstein in Germany to stop the nazi Merz Knowing the pathetic state of western military tech, these tampon missiles were nothing that Russian AD could not deal with. But they were probably the ace up Donnie’s sleeve going into that meeting tomorrow. Now, that ace is gone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 13:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107kfkf$ef35$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639650 |
On 13.08.2025 17:06, Python wrote: > A student is definitely not lucky if she or he had the misfortune to > have you, You mean he or she can no longer believe in Cantor's nonsense after classical mathematics shows lim(n-->oo) n/n^2 = 0 and not 1? There are worse things than to get happy by belief in nonsense. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 12:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107kl2l$31gs$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #639662 |
WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: > On 13.08.2025 17:06, Python wrote: >> A student is definitely not lucky if she or he had the misfortune to >> have you [Wolfgang Mückenheim], [ ... as a teacher. ] Indeed not. > You mean he or she can no longer believe in Cantor's nonsense after > classical mathematics shows > lim(n-->oo) n/n^2 = 0 and not 1? He or she is definitely not lucky to be "taught" about set theory by a crank who doesn't even understand limits. > There are worse things than to get happy by belief in nonsense. You call mathematics "nonsense" simply because it's beyond your understanding. Many thousands, if not millions, of maths students understand set theory thoroughly, because they've been taught by people who in turn understand it. It is something which, with some study, becomes self evidently correct. Your students will not end up understanding set theory thoroughly, having been led into crankish and false deviations from that self evident truth. > Regards, WM -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 15:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107kmn8$ejur$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639665 |
On 14.08.2025 14:33, Alan Mackenzie wrote: A lot of angry words. Typical crankish behaviour. Mathematicians would discuss arguments. Are there prime numbers which will never be known by humans? Is the limit lim(n-->oo) n/n^2 = 0 or 1? Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107kp0l$31gs$3@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #639672 |
WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: > On 14.08.2025 14:33, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > A lot of angry words. [ .... ] No, sadness, not anger. > Mathematicians would discuss arguments. > Are there prime numbers which will never be known by humans? > Is the limit lim(n-->oo) n/n^2 = 0 or 1? Mathematicians don't spend time discussing silly non-mathematical things like "will never be known by humans", and certainly not things about limits which would bore a 14 year old. > Regards, WM -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 16:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107kqkn$ef35$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639675 |
On 14.08.2025 15:40, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: >> On 14.08.2025 14:33, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >> A lot of angry words. [ .... ] > > No, sadness, not anger. > >> Mathematicians would discuss arguments. > >> Are there prime numbers which will never be known by humans? >> Is the limit lim(n-->oo) n/n^2 = 0 or 1? > > Mathematicians don't spend time discussing silly non-mathematical things > like "will never be known by humans", Will never be known by anyone even if time is infinite. > and certainly not things about > limits which would bore a 14 year old. The limit 0 is not difficult to find. But that "modern mathematics" contradicts 0 and claims 1 is not so boring. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 14:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107kr75$31gs$4@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #639677 |
WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: > On 14.08.2025 15:40, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: >>> On 14.08.2025 14:33, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> A lot of angry words. [ .... ] >> No, sadness, not anger. >>> Mathematicians would discuss arguments. >>> Are there prime numbers which will never be known by humans? >>> Is the limit lim(n-->oo) n/n^2 = 0 or 1? >> Mathematicians don't spend time discussing silly non-mathematical things >> like "will never be known by humans", > Will never be known by anyone even if time is infinite. >> and certainly not things about >> limits which would bore a 14 year old. > The limit 0 is not difficult to find. But that "modern mathematics" > contradicts 0 and claims 1 is not so boring. Modern mathematics does no such thing. You are confused about something, and spuriously attribute your confusion to mathematics rather than to your own meagre understanding of it. > Regards, WM -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-15 14:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107navh$13k67$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #639678 |
On 14.08.2025 16:18, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: >> On 14.08.2025 15:40, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: >>>> On 14.08.2025 14:33, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>>> A lot of angry words. [ .... ] > >>> No, sadness, not anger. > >>>> Mathematicians would discuss arguments. > >>>> Are there prime numbers which will never be known by humans? >>>> Is the limit lim(n-->oo) n/n^2 = 0 or 1? > >>> Mathematicians don't spend time discussing silly non-mathematical things >>> like "will never be known by humans", > >> Will never be known by anyone even if time is infinite. > >>> and certainly not things about >>> limits which would bore a 14 year old. > >> The limit 0 is not difficult to find. But that "modern mathematics" >> contradicts 0 and claims 1 is not so boring. > > Modern mathematics does no such thing. You are mistaken again. Either there is a bijection between first column and matrix, then the first column has exactly as many element as the matrix (that is the meaning of bijection) and the limit is 1. Or this is wrong and the limit is 0. It is impossible that both is true because 0 =/= 1. All my students have a better brain than you. They all with no exception have accepted and understood that the sum of all individually definable numbers is finite in every case (of the potentially infinite sequence). Therefore the sum of the not individually definable numbers of the complement (and the complement itself) must be infinite. May a merciful God prevent that you ever recognize what a rubbish you have learnt and continue to be advocating. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-15 13:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107nefr$1a23$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #639698 |
WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: > On 14.08.2025 16:18, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote: [ .... ] >>> The limit 0 is not difficult to find. But that "modern mathematics" >>> contradicts 0 and claims 1 is not so boring. >> Modern mathematics does no such thing. > You are mistaken again. Either there is a bijection between first column > and matrix, then the first column has exactly as many element as the > matrix (that is the meaning of bijection) and the limit is 1. Or this is > wrong and the limit is 0. It is impossible that both is true because 0 > =/= 1. It is possible that the limit, as you perceive it, is not well defined. That is in fact the case, as you have shown. That first column does indeed have as many elements as the entire matrix - there is a 1-1 correspondence between them. > All my students have a better brain than you. Unlikely, though possible. > They all with no exception have accepted and understood that the sum of > all individually definable numbers is finite in every case (of the > potentially infinite sequence). In other words, they (having better brains than me) have been sullied by false crank mathatematics, and will never understand these matters any better than you do. > Therefore the sum of the not individually definable numbers of the > complement (and the complement itself) must be infinite. Total gibberish. > May a merciful God prevent that you ever recognize what a rubbish you > have learnt and continue to be advocating. What I have learnt was distilled by the best mathematicians of the last 2500 years from the background confusion. It continues to be taught and refined. Although it cannot be proved consistent or correct as a whole, inconsistencies in it don't get found on a day to day basis. You are incapable of understanding this mathematics, but rather than accepting your limitations, or trying to correct them, you've turned into a crank and teach falsehoods to your students. I really feel for them. > Regards, WM -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web