Re: when laypersons look smarter than math professors Re: a question for the anti-Cantorians


HERC777 wrote:
> >> Any set that cannot have the elements line
> >> up in a list is illegal.
> >
> >SEZ WHO?
> >Who appointed You the lawgiver?
> >That is just ridiculous.
>
>
> This is logic.
> You can't just SAY that something is a load of ***.
> You have to ACTUALLY DERIVE A CONTRADICTION from it.

That is of course, if it were actually "something" to begin
with. If, by contrast, to begin with, IT WAS A LOAD OF ***,
THEN you can just say so.

You would've actually NEEDED to quote the one where I
said that technical terms ALREADY HAVE meanings and that
you don't just get to redefine them because you want to.
But the one you REALLY needed to quote was the one that
said POST SOME AXIOMS. You could (if you had a brain)
write an axiom-set saying that a Herc-set had to be bijectible
with a list, and saying, further, WHAT A LIST is. But your
problem is, YOU DON'T KNOW what a list is. IF YOU COULD POST
SOME AXIOMS *defining* "list", THEN we could get somewhere.
But we couldn't get far because EVERYBODY ELSE ALREADY HAS
some OTHER axioms defining "list" -- UNLIKE YOU, WE *KNOW*
what a list is.

Axioms, definitions, and theorems are three very DIFFERENT
kinds of things. Disagreeing with the community's definitions
really does just make you full of ***. If you prefer some
different definitions, you DON'T have to use OUR words for your
terms! If you are defining a different concept then OF COURSE
you are going to WANT to call it something DIFFERENT!

.