Hi You might find this paper interesting and controversial . It proves

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/All-things-are-possible.pdf


1)Mathematics/science end in contradiction. 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

2) The paper also proves in logic that all opinions are equally valid ie feminism is valid and anti-feminism is valid. Also the opinions for gay marriage are valid: opinions for gay marriage and against gay marriage are equally valid. Logic shows: the opinions of the left are as equally valid as the opinions of the center and right

Sara242- see Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems

I believe this is the theorem that Colin Leslie Dean uses to indicate that Maths is inconsistent.

The incompleteness theorem is sometimes thought to have severe consequences for the program of logicism proposed by Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell, which aimed to define the natural numbers in terms of logic (Hellman 1981, p. 451–468). Bob Hale and Crispin Wright argue that it is not a problem for logicism because the incompleteness theorems apply equally to first order logic as they do to arithmetic. They argue that only those who believe that the natural numbers are to be defined in terms of first order logic have this problem.

The Wiki article refers to a comparable problem "the liars paradox" which is also inconsistent.

Science tends to use Maths as a tool to extrapolate upon empirical sources not as an a priori source.

Using Science for invalid purposes is known as Scientism. But I like your ideas Sara242.

It may be controversial among Arts students, but mathematicians would be united in declaring it to be total crap. Mathematics is totally consistent. The argument otherwise proves nothing because it relies on the false premise that a number with infinite recursion is not a finite number.

"The argument otherwise proves nothing because it relies on the false premise that a number with infinite recursion is not a finite number."

0.999... is non finite it cannot be counted-it has no end

another way

fact is 1 is an integer 0.999.. is a non-integer
when an integer(1) = a non-integer(0.999...)
we have a contradiction in maths

You're talking about countable (integers, rationals) and uncountable (real) numbers. I think this was one of Hilbert's problems- the second one from memory. This problem was proved by Georg Cantor who I believe killed himself by cyanide though I could be wrong.

This demonstrates that even experts can struggle with these ideas. In Maths it's easy to make incorrect conclusions to results especially for the uninitiated- this doesn't mean that the uninitiated cannot make valuable contributions- but perhaps some care is required.