DOCSLIB.ORG

Why Cantor's Theorem Is Meaningless

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why Cantor's Theorem Is Meaningless WHY CANTOR’S THEOREM IS MEANINGLESS and there aren’t Infinite Infinities Pravin K. Johri Cantor’s theorem: The Power set of a set has higher cardinality than the set itself. Given an infinite set, one can recursively form Power sets of higher and higher cardinality leading to the conclusion there are infinitely many possible sizes of infinite sets. The notion of a single infinity is abstract. The very idea of “Infinite infinities” should boggle everyone’s mind. Excerpts from the Wikipedia page “Georg Cantor” Prior to this (Cantor’s) work, the concept of a set was a rather elementary one that had been used implicitly since the beginnings of mathematics, dating back to the ideas of Aristotle. No one had realized that set theory had any nontrivial content. Before Cantor, there were only finite sets (which are easy to understand) and "the infinite" (which was considered a topic for philosophical, rather than mathematical, discussion). By proving that there are (infinitely) many possible sizes for infinite sets, Cantor established that set theory was not trivial, and it needed to be studied. Set theory has come to play the role of a foundational theory in modern mathematics, in the sense that it interprets propositions about mathematical objects (for example, numbers and functions) from all the traditional areas of mathematics (such as algebra, analysis and topology) in a single theory, and provides a standard set of axioms to prove or disprove them. It turns out that there is a hidden assumption in the axiom of Power set which is equivalent to the theorem’s conclusion. By assuming that Power sets exist via the axiom of Power set, Cantor’s theorem presumes the ultimate outcome and is meaningless for finite sets. Furthermore, it is not even defined for infinite sets! 1 The Two Notions of Infinity Aristotle’s abstract notion of a potential infinity is “something” without a bound and larger than any known number. Excerpts from the Wikipedia page “Brouwer-Hilbert controversy” Cantor extended the intuitive notion of "the infinite" – one foot placed after the other in a never-ending march toward the horizon – to the notion of "a completed infinite" – the arrival "all the way, way out there" in one fell swoop, and he symbolized this [as] … ℵ0 (aleph-null). Excerpts from the Wikipedia page “Actual infinity” In the philosophy of mathematics, the abstraction of actual infinity involves the acceptance (if the axiom of infinity is included) of infinite entities, such as the set of all natural numbers or an infinite sequence of rational numbers, as given, actual, completed objects. This is contrasted with potential infinity, in which a non-terminating process (such as "add 1 to the previous number") produces a sequence with no last element, and each individual result is finite and is achieved in a finite number of steps. Few people realize that Cantor’s notion of a “completed infinity” is different than Aristotle’s idea of a potential infinity. It requires an undefined act of “completion” and a new abstract notation – the “aleph” numbers which represent the sizes of infinite sets. Cantor’s Theorem and Proof For any set S, the Power set of S denoted as P(S) has a strictly greater cardinality than the set S itself. When applied to an infinite set such as the countable set of natural numbers N, the Power set of N becomes uncountably infinite. The result is obvious for finite sets since the size of the Power set of a finite set with n elements is 2n. The proof for the infinite set N is by contradiction – assume there is a one-to-one correspondence between N and P(N) and find a contradiction. 2 Given any one-to-one correspondence, a natural number in the set N can be paired with a subset of N in P(N) that either contains or does not contain that natural number. If the former is true, the number is called “selfish” and called “unselfish” otherwise. The set of all unselfish numbers, denoted as D, provides the contradiction. This set D must be paired with a natural number, say d. By definition, d cannot be in D, but then it is an unselfish number and therefore must be in D, providing the contradiction. If D is empty then every natural number is selfish and must map to a set that contains the natural number, and in this case no natural number can map to the empty set in P(N) since the empty set contains no elements and, hence, includes no natural number. This proves that the cardinalities of the sets N and P(N) cannot be the same. Since P(N) contains N it has the larger uncountable cardinality (often |N| denoted as 1 = 2 where |N| = 0). Infinite Infinities The Power set of the Power set of N, and the Power set of that Power set, and so on indefinitely result in ever larger and larger sets. So, there can be infinite sizes of infinite sets denoted by the infinite sequence of aleph numbers 0, 1, 2 … Inconsistencies in the Proof of Cantor’s Theorem To show one-to-one correspondence, if it exists, between the set N and its Power set P(N) is difficult enough. To prove that there cannot be one-to-one correspondence between these two sets should be an order of magnitude harder! How was Cantor able to establish such a difficult proposition so concisely? Did the proof involve some artful, innovative argument? Not quite! Cantor’s proof relies on a number of questionable assumptions. Here is a list. 3 Why does the Power set P(N) contain the empty set while the set N does not? A set is defined as a fixed collection of distinct objects. S = {3, 5} is an example of a set that contains two different objects. A subset of a set includes one or more elements of that set and no other elements. The subsets of {3, 5} should be the two sets {3} and {5}. One could technically count the entire set {3, 5} as a subset of itself. The empty set denoted as {} is defined as the unique set with no elements. The empty set is inconsistent with both a set and a subset. If there is no element, there is no set (or a subset of another set). In fact, the empty set used to be called the null set which denotes that there is no set. The Power set of a set S, denoted as P(S), used to be the set of all subsets of S. This definition was later changed to include the empty set and the set S itself in addition to the subsets of S. With this revision, if S = {3, 5} then P(S) = {{}, {3}, {5}, {3, 5}}. Is the empty set forcibly included in the Power set to keep the proof of Cantor’s theorem whole? The Power set of the Power set of S, denoted as P(P(S)), includes the following objects: The empty set {} Subsets of size 1 {{}} {3} {5} {3, 5} Subsets of size 2 {{}, {3}} {{}, {5}} {{}, {3, 5}} {{3}, {5}} {{3}, {3, 5}} {{5}, {3, 5}} Subsets of size 3 {{}, {3}, {5}} {{}, {3}, {3, 5}} {{}, {5}, {3, 5}} {{3}, {5}, {3, 5}} The set P(S) {{}, {3}, {5}, {3, 5}} It has elements such as {} and {{}} which are considered to be distinct. The latter is just a set that contains the empty set. Can two “things” that both contain “nothing” be distinct? On the other hand, the empty set was characterized as unique, as one empty set is no different than another empty set. The concept becomes even more weird! 4 The Power sets can be formed recursively, without an end, eventually leading to infinite elements such as {}, {{}}, {{{}}}, {{{{}}}}, {{{{{}}}}}, … All of which are a set that contains a set that contains a set that contains a set … that contains the empty set. Not a single element of the original set is present in any of these objects. Infinite distinct entities have been created out of nothing (the empty set). This theory is bizarre!! Cantor’s theorem breaks down if the empty set is not in P(N). The arbitrary inclusion of the empty set in P(N) ensures that the set D of all unselfish elements cannot be empty (or there is a contradiction with the one-to- one correspondence between N and P(N) assumed at the beginning of the proof). This is the key step that enables such a simple proof of Cantor’s theorem! If D is empty, then the remaining problem is still to show there is no one-to-one correspondence between N and P(N) – the same problem as before! The proof also breaks down if the empty set is included in the set N itself. It defies common sense that the addition of just one more element makes the size of a set increase to a higher order of infinity. Surely, if the theorem is indeed true, there must be a way to prove it without the controversial insertion of the empty set in the Power set. Does the Power Set of an Infinite Set Exist? Does P(N) exist? Mathematics does not provide an existence proof. Instead, it relies on the axiom of Power set which stipulates that the Power set exists for every set, finite or infinite. An axiom is a fancy name for an assumption. No infinite set (or quantity) can be constructed in reality. Simply assuming the existence of an infinite set and also that of the Power set of an infinite set are blatant violations of the concept of an axiom.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Two Sources of Explosion
    Two sources of explosion Eric Kao Computer Science Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 United States of America Abstract. In pursuit of enhancing the deductive power of Direct Logic while avoiding explosiveness, Hewitt has proposed including the law of excluded middle and proof by self-refutation. In this paper, I show that the inclusion of either one of these inference patterns causes paracon- sistent logics such as Hewitt's Direct Logic and Besnard and Hunter's quasi-classical logic to become explosive. 1 Introduction A central goal of a paraconsistent logic is to avoid explosiveness { the inference of any arbitrary sentence β from an inconsistent premise set fp; :pg (ex falso quodlibet). Hewitt [2] Direct Logic and Besnard and Hunter's quasi-classical logic (QC) [1, 5, 4] both seek to preserve the deductive power of classical logic \as much as pos- sible" while still avoiding explosiveness. Their work fits into the ongoing research program of identifying some \reasonable" and \maximal" subsets of classically valid rules and axioms that do not lead to explosiveness. To this end, it is natural to consider which classically sound deductive rules and axioms one can introduce into a paraconsistent logic without causing explo- siveness. Hewitt [3] proposed including the law of excluded middle and the proof by self-refutation rule (a very special case of proof by contradiction) but did not show whether the resulting logic would be explosive. In this paper, I show that for quasi-classical logic and its variant, the addition of either the law of excluded middle or the proof by self-refutation rule in fact leads to explosiveness.
    [Show full text]
  • The Axiom of Infinity and the Natural Numbers
    Axiom of Infinity Natural Numbers Axiomatic Systems The Axiom of Infinity and The Natural Numbers Bernd Schroder¨ logo1 Bernd Schroder¨ Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science The Axiom of Infinity and The Natural Numbers 1. The axioms that we have introduced so far provide for a rich theory. 2. But they do not guarantee the existence of infinite sets. 3. In fact, the superstructure over the empty set is a model that satisfies all the axioms so far and which does not contain any infinite sets. (Remember that the superstructure itself is not a set in the model.) Axiom of Infinity Natural Numbers Axiomatic Systems Infinite Sets logo1 Bernd Schroder¨ Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science The Axiom of Infinity and The Natural Numbers 2. But they do not guarantee the existence of infinite sets. 3. In fact, the superstructure over the empty set is a model that satisfies all the axioms so far and which does not contain any infinite sets. (Remember that the superstructure itself is not a set in the model.) Axiom of Infinity Natural Numbers Axiomatic Systems Infinite Sets 1. The axioms that we have introduced so far provide for a rich theory. logo1 Bernd Schroder¨ Louisiana Tech University, College of Engineering and Science The Axiom of Infinity and The Natural Numbers 3. In fact, the superstructure over the empty set is a model that satisfies all the axioms so far and which does not contain any infinite sets. (Remember that the superstructure itself is not a set in the model.) Axiom of Infinity Natural Numbers Axiomatic Systems Infinite Sets 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Equivalents to the Axiom of Choice and Their Uses A
    EQUIVALENTS TO THE AXIOM OF CHOICE AND THEIR USES A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Mathematics California State University, Los Angeles In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Mathematics By James Szufu Yang c 2015 James Szufu Yang ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii The thesis of James Szufu Yang is approved. Mike Krebs, Ph.D. Kristin Webster, Ph.D. Michael Hoffman, Ph.D., Committee Chair Grant Fraser, Ph.D., Department Chair California State University, Los Angeles June 2015 iii ABSTRACT Equivalents to the Axiom of Choice and Their Uses By James Szufu Yang In set theory, the Axiom of Choice (AC) was formulated in 1904 by Ernst Zermelo. It is an addition to the older Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) set theory. We call it Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with the Axiom of Choice and abbreviate it as ZFC. This paper starts with an introduction to the foundations of ZFC set the- ory, which includes the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, partially ordered sets (posets), the Cartesian product, the Axiom of Choice, and their related proofs. It then intro- duces several equivalent forms of the Axiom of Choice and proves that they are all equivalent. In the end, equivalents to the Axiom of Choice are used to prove a few fundamental theorems in set theory, linear analysis, and abstract algebra. This paper is concluded by a brief review of the work in it, followed by a few points of interest for further study in mathematics and/or set theory. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Between the two department requirements to complete a master's degree in mathematics − the comprehensive exams and a thesis, I really wanted to experience doing a research and writing a serious academic paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic, Sets, and Proofs David A
    Logic, Sets, and Proofs David A. Cox and Catherine C. McGeoch Amherst College 1 Logic Logical Statements. A logical statement is a mathematical statement that is either true or false. Here we denote logical statements with capital letters A; B. Logical statements be combined to form new logical statements as follows: Name Notation Conjunction A and B Disjunction A or B Negation not A :A Implication A implies B if A, then B A ) B Equivalence A if and only if B A , B Here are some examples of conjunction, disjunction and negation: x > 1 and x < 3: This is true when x is in the open interval (1; 3). x > 1 or x < 3: This is true for all real numbers x. :(x > 1): This is the same as x ≤ 1. Here are two logical statements that are true: x > 4 ) x > 2. x2 = 1 , (x = 1 or x = −1). Note that \x = 1 or x = −1" is usually written x = ±1. Converses, Contrapositives, and Tautologies. We begin with converses and contrapositives: • The converse of \A implies B" is \B implies A". • The contrapositive of \A implies B" is \:B implies :A" Thus the statement \x > 4 ) x > 2" has: • Converse: x > 2 ) x > 4. • Contrapositive: x ≤ 2 ) x ≤ 4. 1 Some logical statements are guaranteed to always be true. These are tautologies. Here are two tautologies that involve converses and contrapositives: • (A if and only if B) , ((A implies B) and (B implies A)). In other words, A and B are equivalent exactly when both A ) B and its converse are true.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Analysis of Indirect Proofs: Contradiction and Contraposition
    On the analysis of indirect proofs: Contradiction and contraposition Nicolas Jourdan & Oleksiy Yevdokimov University of Southern Queensland [email protected] [email protected] roof by contradiction is a very powerful mathematical technique. Indeed, Premarkable results such as the fundamental theorem of arithmetic can be proved by contradiction (e.g., Grossman, 2009, p. 248). This method of proof is also one of the oldest types of proof early Greek mathematicians developed. More than two millennia ago two of the most famous results in mathematics: The irrationality of 2 (Heath, 1921, p. 155), and the infinitude of prime numbers (Euclid, Elements IX, 20) were obtained through reasoning by contradiction. This method of proof was so well established in Greek mathematics that many of Euclid’s theorems and most of Archimedes’ important results were proved by contradiction. In the 17th century, proofs by contradiction became the focus of attention of philosophers and mathematicians, and the status and dignity of this method of proof came into question (Mancosu, 1991, p. 15). The debate centred around the traditional Aristotelian position that only causality could be the base of true scientific knowledge. In particular, according to this traditional position, a mathematical proof must proceed from the cause to the effect. Starting from false assumptions a proof by contradiction could not reveal the cause. As Mancosu (1996, p. 26) writes: “There was thus a consensus on the part of these scholars that proofs by contradiction were inferior to direct Australian Senior Mathematics Journal vol. 30 no. 1 proofs on account of their lack of causality.” More recently, in the 20th century, the intuitionists went further and came to regard proof by contradiction as an invalid method of reasoning.
    [Show full text]
  • Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Boise State University, [email protected]
    Boise State University ScholarWorks Mathematics Undergraduate Theses Department of Mathematics 5-2014 Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Boise State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/ math_undergraduate_theses Part of the Set Theory Commons Recommended Citation Rahim, Farighon Abdul, "Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice" (2014). Mathematics Undergraduate Theses. Paper 1. Axioms of Set Theory and Equivalents of Axiom of Choice Farighon Abdul Rahim Advisor: Samuel Coskey Boise State University May 2014 1 Introduction Sets are all around us. A bag of potato chips, for instance, is a set containing certain number of individual chip’s that are its elements. University is another example of a set with students as its elements. By elements, we mean members. But sets should not be confused as to what they really are. A daughter of a blacksmith is an element of a set that contains her mother, father, and her siblings. Then this set is an element of a set that contains all the other families that live in the nearby town. So a set itself can be an element of a bigger set. In mathematics, axiom is defined to be a rule or a statement that is accepted to be true regardless of having to prove it. In a sense, axioms are self evident. In set theory, we deal with sets. Each time we state an axiom, we will do so by considering sets. Example of the set containing the blacksmith family might make it seem as if sets are finite.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic and Proof Release 3.18.4
    Logic and Proof Release 3.18.4 Jeremy Avigad, Robert Y. Lewis, and Floris van Doorn Sep 10, 2021 CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Mathematical Proof ............................................ 1 1.2 Symbolic Logic .............................................. 2 1.3 Interactive Theorem Proving ....................................... 4 1.4 The Semantic Point of View ....................................... 5 1.5 Goals Summarized ............................................ 6 1.6 About this Textbook ........................................... 6 2 Propositional Logic 7 2.1 A Puzzle ................................................. 7 2.2 A Solution ................................................ 7 2.3 Rules of Inference ............................................ 8 2.4 The Language of Propositional Logic ................................... 15 2.5 Exercises ................................................. 16 3 Natural Deduction for Propositional Logic 17 3.1 Derivations in Natural Deduction ..................................... 17 3.2 Examples ................................................. 19 3.3 Forward and Backward Reasoning .................................... 20 3.4 Reasoning by Cases ............................................ 22 3.5 Some Logical Identities .......................................... 23 3.6 Exercises ................................................. 24 4 Propositional Logic in Lean 25 4.1 Expressions for Propositions and Proofs ................................. 25 4.2 More commands ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fourier's Proof of the Irrationality of E
    Ursinus College Digital Commons @ Ursinus College Transforming Instruction in Undergraduate Calculus Mathematics via Primary Historical Sources (TRIUMPHS) Summer 2020 Fourier's Proof of the Irrationality of e Kenneth M. Monks Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/triumphs_calculus Click here to let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Fourier's Proof of the Irrationality of e Kenneth M Monks ∗ August 6, 2020 We begin with a short passage from Aristotle's1 Prior Analytics2. This translation was completed by Oxford scholars in 1931 and compiled by Richard McKeon into The Basic Works of Aristotle [McKeon, 1941]. 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 xI.23. For all who effect an argument per impossibile infer syllogistically what is false, and prove the original conclusion hypothetically when something impossible results from the as- sumption of its contradictory; e.g. that the diagonal of a square is incommensurate with the side, because odd numbers are equal to evens if it is supposed to be commensurate. 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 The goal of this project is to work through a proof of the irrationality of the number e due to Joseph Fourier. This number would not have even been defined in any publication for another two millennia3 (plus a few years) after the writing of Prior Analytics! So, the reader may wonder why we are rewinding our clocks so far back. Well, it turns out that the key ideas required to understand Fourier's proof of the irrationality of e can be traced right back to that passage from Aristotle. In Section 1, we extract the key pattern of Aristotelian logic needed to understand Fourier's proof, and give it a bit more of a modern formulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Beginning Logic MATH 10130 Spring 2019 University of Notre Dame Contents
    Beginning Logic MATH 10130 Spring 2019 University of Notre Dame Contents 0.1 What is logic? What will we do in this course? . .1 I Propositional Logic 5 1 Beginning propositional logic 6 1.1 Symbols . .6 1.2 Well-formed formulas . .7 1.3 Basic translation . .8 1.4 Implications . 11 1.5 Nuances with negations . 12 2 Proofs 13 2.1 Introduction to proofs . 13 2.2 The first rules of inference . 14 2.3 Rule for implications . 20 2.4 Rules for conjunctions . 24 2.5 Rules for disjunctions . 28 2.6 Proof by contradiction . 32 2.7 Bi-conditional statements . 35 2.8 More examples of proofs . 36 2.9 Some useful proofs . 39 3 Truth 48 3.1 Definition of Truth . 48 3.2 Truth tables . 49 3.3 Analysis of arguments using truth tables . 53 4 Soundness and Completeness 56 4.1 Two notions of validity . 56 4.2 Examples: proofs vs. truth tables . 57 4.3 More examples . 63 4.4 Verifying Soundness . 70 4.5 Explanation of Completeness . 72 i II Predicate Logic 74 5 Beginning predicate logic 75 5.1 Shortcomings of propositional logic . 75 5.2 Symbols of predicate logic . 76 5.3 Definition of well-formed formula . 77 5.4 Translation . 82 5.5 Learning the idioms for predicate logic . 84 5.6 Free variables and sentences . 86 6 Proofs 91 6.1 Basic proofs . 91 6.2 Rules for universal quantifiers . 93 6.3 Rules for existential quantifiers . 98 6.4 Rules for equality . 102 7 Structures and Truth 106 7.1 Languages and structures .
    [Show full text]
  • Common Sense for Concurrency and Strong Paraconsistency Using Unstratified Inference and Reflection
    Published in ArXiv http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4852 http://commonsense.carlhewitt.info Common sense for concurrency and strong paraconsistency using unstratified inference and reflection Carl Hewitt http://carlhewitt.info This paper is dedicated to John McCarthy. Abstract Unstratified Reflection is the Norm....................................... 11 Abstraction and Reification .............................................. 11 This paper develops a strongly paraconsistent formalism (called Direct Logic™) that incorporates the mathematics of Diagonal Argument .......................................................... 12 Computer Science and allows unstratified inference and Logical Fixed Point Theorem ........................................... 12 reflection using mathematical induction for almost all of Disadvantages of stratified metatheories ........................... 12 classical logic to be used. Direct Logic allows mutual Reification Reflection ....................................................... 13 reflection among the mutually chock full of inconsistencies Incompleteness Theorem for Theories of Direct Logic ..... 14 code, documentation, and use cases of large software systems Inconsistency Theorem for Theories of Direct Logic ........ 15 thereby overcoming the limitations of the traditional Tarskian Consequences of Logically Necessary Inconsistency ........ 16 framework of stratified metatheories. Concurrency is the Norm ...................................................... 16 Gödel first formalized and proved that it is not possible
    [Show full text]
  • Proofs and Mathematical Reasoning
    Proofs and Mathematical Reasoning University of Birmingham Author: Supervisors: Agata Stefanowicz Joe Kyle Michael Grove September 2014 c University of Birmingham 2014 Contents 1 Introduction 6 2 Mathematical language and symbols 6 2.1 Mathematics is a language . .6 2.2 Greek alphabet . .6 2.3 Symbols . .6 2.4 Words in mathematics . .7 3 What is a proof? 9 3.1 Writer versus reader . .9 3.2 Methods of proofs . .9 3.3 Implications and if and only if statements . 10 4 Direct proof 11 4.1 Description of method . 11 4.2 Hard parts? . 11 4.3 Examples . 11 4.4 Fallacious \proofs" . 15 4.5 Counterexamples . 16 5 Proof by cases 17 5.1 Method . 17 5.2 Hard parts? . 17 5.3 Examples of proof by cases . 17 6 Mathematical Induction 19 6.1 Method . 19 6.2 Versions of induction. 19 6.3 Hard parts? . 20 6.4 Examples of mathematical induction . 20 7 Contradiction 26 7.1 Method . 26 7.2 Hard parts? . 26 7.3 Examples of proof by contradiction . 26 8 Contrapositive 29 8.1 Method . 29 8.2 Hard parts? . 29 8.3 Examples . 29 9 Tips 31 9.1 What common mistakes do students make when trying to present the proofs? . 31 9.2 What are the reasons for mistakes? . 32 9.3 Advice to students for writing good proofs . 32 9.4 Friendly reminder . 32 c University of Birmingham 2014 10 Sets 34 10.1 Basics . 34 10.2 Subsets and power sets . 34 10.3 Cardinality and equality .
    [Show full text]
  • Analytic Continuation of Ζ(S) Violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC)
    Analytic Continuation of ζ(s) Violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) Ayal Sharon ∗y July 30, 2019 Abstract The Dirichlet series of ζ(s) was long ago proven to be divergent throughout half-plane Re(s) ≤ 1. If also Riemann’s proposition is true, that there exists an "expression" of ζ(s) that is convergent at all s (except at s = 1), then ζ(s) is both divergent and convergent throughout half-plane Re(s) ≤ 1 (except at s = 1). This result violates all three of Aristotle’s "Laws of Thought": the Law of Identity (LOI), the Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM), and the Law of Non- Contradition (LNC). In classical and intuitionistic logics, the violation of LNC also triggers the "Principle of Explosion" / Ex Contradictione Quodlibet (ECQ). In addition, the Hankel contour used in Riemann’s analytic continuation of ζ(s) violates Cauchy’s integral theorem, providing another proof of the invalidity of Riemann’s ζ(s). Riemann’s ζ(s) is one of the L-functions, which are all in- valid due to analytic continuation. This result renders unsound all theorems (e.g. Modularity, Fermat’s last) and conjectures (e.g. BSD, Tate, Hodge, Yang-Mills) that assume that an L-function (e.g. Riemann’s ζ(s)) is valid. We also show that the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) is not "non-trivially true" in classical logic, intuitionistic logic, or three-valued logics (3VLs) that assign a third truth-value to paradoxes (Bochvar’s 3VL, Priest’s LP ). ∗Patent Examiner, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
    [Show full text]