anne242

It is proven maths/science ends in meaninglessness/contradiction: Magister colin leslie dean the only modern Renaissance man with 9 degrees including 4 masters: B,Sc, BA, B.Litt(Hons), MA, B.Litt(Hons), MA, MA (Psychoanalytic studies), Master of Psychoanalytic studies, Grad Cert (Literary studies) : who proved Godels theorems to be invalid He is also Australia's leading erotic poet and showed science/mathematics ends in meaninglessness 1)Mathematics/science ends in contradiction:an integer=a non-integer Mathematics ends in contradiction:6 examples 2) the theory of evolution ends in meaninglessness 3) biology is not a sciencE 3) biologists dont know what a species is-thus theory of evolution is nonsense all very simple and clear the facts are 1) 1 is a finite number it stops A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157 A non-finite decimal like 0.888... does not stop A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction another way 1 is an integer a whole number 0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number 0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction 2)1)Darwins book is called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection .... but this paper shows natural selection is not the origin of new species Natural selection is not the origin of new species Natural selection does not generate new genes/species Natural selection adds no new genetic information as it only deals with the passing on of genes/traits already present and it will be pointed out genetics cannot account for the generation of new species/genes as it is claimed the generation of new genes [via mutation] is a random process due to radiation, viruses, chemicals etc and genetic cannot account for these process happening as they are out side the scope of genetics physics, chaos theory etc may give some explanation but genetics cant 2) Biologist cant tell us what a species is -without contradiction thus evolution theory ie evolving species is nonsense Biologists agree there is species hybridization but that contradicts what a species is 3) biologist tell us they investigate life but they cant tell us what life is-they can tell us what life does but cant tell us what life is they cant even give a definition of life that is not nonsense

its all very simple really 1 is a finite number it stops A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157 A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction another way 1 is an integer a whole number 0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number 0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction

Godels theorem is invalid as his G statement is banned by an axiom of the system he uses to prove his theorem SPAM LINK DELETED a flaw in theorem Godels sentence G is outlawed by the very axiom he uses to prove his theorem ie the axiom of reducibiilty AR -thus his proof is invalid http://www.enotes.com/topic/Axiom_of_reducibility russells axiom of reducibility was formed such that impredicative statements were banned but godels uses this AR axiom in his incompleteness proof ie axiom 1v and formular 40 and as godel states he is useing the logic of PM ie AR "P is essentially the system obtained by superimposing on the Peano axioms the logic of PM[ ie AR axiom of reducibility]" now godel constructs an impredicative statement G which AR was meant to ban The impredicative statement Godel constructs is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems the corresponding Gödel sentence G asserts: G cannot be proved to be true within the theory T now godels use of AR bans godels G statement thus godel cannot then go on to give a proof by useing a statement his own axiom bans but in doing so he invalidates his whole proof

Godel's 2nd theorem ends in paradox Godel's 2nd theorem is about SPAM LINK DELETED "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

Gödel’s 1st theorem is meaningless as Godel cant tell us what makes a maths statement true SPMA LINK DELETED Gödel’s 1st theorem states 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

Axiomatic set theory ZFC is inconsistent thus mathematics ends in contradiction LINK DELETED Axiomatic set theory ZFC was in part developed to rid mathematics of its paradoxes such as Russell's paradox The axiom in ZFC developed to do that, ad hoc,is the axiom of separation Now Russell's paradox is a famous example of an impredicative construction, namely the set of all sets which do not contain themselves The axiom of separation is used to outlaw/block/ban impredicative statements like Russells paradox but this axiom of separation is itself impredicative but the axiom thus bans itself-thus ZFC is inconsistent [axiom of separation] thus it outlaws/blocks/bans itself thus ZFC contradicts itself and 1)ZFC is inconsistent 2) that the paradoxes it was meant to avoid are now still valid and thus mathematics is inconsistent Now we have paradoxes like Russells paradox Banach-Tarskin paradox Burili-Forti paradox Which are now still valid with all the paradoxes in maths returning mathematics now again ends in contradiction

1)Mathematics/science end in contradiction-an integer=a non-integer. When mathematics/science end in contradiction it is proven in logic that you can prove anything you want in mathematics ie you can prove Fermat's last theorem and you can disprove Fermat's last theorem http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/All-things-are-possible.pdf The paper proves 1 is a finite number it stops A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157 A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction another way 1 is an integer a whole number 0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number 0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction

As was pointed out it s all about what order the rotations occur