Posted: Mar 09, 2020 10:00 pm
by jane
Hi I have seen a lot of people on here rubbish Magister Colin leslie dean

So I will present his views on mathematics and science

"[Deans] philosophy is the sickest, most paralyzing and most destructive thing that has ever originated from the brain of man."

"[Dean] lay waste to everything in its path... [It is ] a systematic work of destruction and demoralization... In the end it became nothing but an act of sacrilege."


The Magister argues Mathematics and science end in meaninglessness
The Magister presents Mathematics and science end in meaninglessness in three papers

1) All things are possible

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ssible.pdf


or

https://www.scribd.com/document/3240377 ... philosophy

where he shows

a finite number 1= a non-finite number 0.999.. thus maths ends in contradiction

a finite number comes to an end stops ie 2 a non-finite number does not end does not stop ie the infinite decimal 0.888...

or as dean puts another way

https://www.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/fd7v9z/erotic_poet_proves_mathematicsscience_end_in/

what does this notation mean-you see it but the result conflicts with your education so mind still refuses to see

0.888...

and

0.999....

and while you are at it

integer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer

"An integer (from the Latin integer meaning "whole")[note 1] is a number that can be written without a fractional component. For example, 21, 4, 0, and −2048 are integers, while 9.75, 5+1/2, and √2 are not.

The set of integers consists of zero (0), the positive natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...), also called whole numbers or counting numbers"

1 is an integer

0.888.. is not an integer

0.999.. is not an integer

thus when an integer 1= a non-integer 0.999.. maths ends in contradiction


and

2) Mathematics ends in contradiction: 6 proofs

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... MATICS.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/4069762 ... tradiction

where one of the Magisters proofs shows 1+1=1
ie 1 number (2) + 1 number (3) = 1 number (5)
or 1 heap +1 heap + 1 heap


3) Godel ends in meaninglessness

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/GODEL5.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/3297032 ... legitimate

A) Godels 1st theorem -is meaningless

1) Gödel’s 1st theorem-is meaningless

a) “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250)


note
"... there is an arithmetical statement that is true..."

In other words there are true mathematical statements which cant be proven
But the fact is Godel cant tell us what makes a mathematical statement true thus his theorem is meaningless

If Godel said ""there will be 'undecidable' statements that can't be proved gibbly or obly"
but did not tell us what gibbly and obly are/meant you would have no trouble saying hey Godel your statement/ theorem is meaningless

same goes for true maths statement if he cant tell us what makes a maths statement true then his theorem is meaningless


B)Godels 2 nd theorem ends in paradox

Godel's 2nd theorem ends in paradox: if his 2nd theorem is true then he has proven what is theorem says is unprovable


Godel's 2nd theorem is about

"If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from
within itself, then it is inconsistent.”


But we have a paradox

Gödel is using a mathematical system
his theorem says a system cant be proven consistent


THUS A PARADOX

Godel must prove that a system cannot be proven to be consistent based upon the premise that the logic he uses must be consistent . If the logic he uses is not consistent then he cannot make a proof that is consistent. So he must assume that his logic is consistent so he can make a proof of the impossibility of proving a system to be consistent. But if his proof is true then he has proved that the logic he
uses to make the proof must be consistent, but his proof proves that
this cannot be done
THUS A PARADOX


There you are

"[Deans] philosophy is the sickest, most paralyzing and most destructive thing that has ever originated from the brain of man."

"[Dean] lay waste to everything in its path... [It is ] a systematic work of destruction and demoralization... In the end it became nothing but an act of sacrilege."