>>11561153>You let that one be called the real numbers in your mind because it supports your opinion, certainlyCalling them "real" is merely a convention. I do not view them as any more real than the complex, the rationals or the hyperreal numbers. It's just a name.
>There will never be another definition of R besides Cantor's and that department of math has permanently stagnated for all future history from now into perpetuityCan't you read? I have already mentioned a different definition of R due to Dedekind. It's different but can proved to be equivalent to Cantor's. Yours is not.
Also Euclid never defined R.
>There will never be another definition of R besides Cantor's and that department of math has permanently stagnated for all future history from now into perpetuityI can come up with 5 more equivalent definitions of R on the spot.
Nobody is arguing that you cannot define R in your own way. The problem is you give one definition and call it the reals, implying you've defined the same thing as Cantor did. You didn't.
>You're stupid, however, because you judge my axiomatic framework on your own axioms instead of the internal consistency of my axioms in their own frameworkYour proof very well may be internally consistent. I never argued against this. What I did say, however, is that your proof is not a proof of the RH.
Let me give you an analogy of what you did.
Let's pretend I'm you. My friend conjectures that the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is 180 degrees.
I prove it as follows:
Definition 1: A triangle is four points arranged in the plane which are joined by line segments.
Disproof of my friends conjecture: Draw a square. It consists of four points arranged in the plane and are joined by line segments. The sum of its internal angles is 360 degrees and not 180 degrees. Hence my friends conjecture is false.
You see what I did here?
My proof is not valid because my definition of the triangle is not the standard one. <cont>
