Re: Update: Objections to Cantor's Theory

On 21 Jul 2005 14:19:32 -0700, "george" <greeneg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Even anti-Cantorians are not so stupid
> as to think that axioms are irrelevant.
>

You didn't talk to Mückenheim, did you?


F.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... DAMN, you're stupid. ... Then there ARE AXIOMS, TOO, dumbass. ... > About the multiple representation of ordinals as sets, ... > powerset of a set X, P, with the script P to delineate it from the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... DAMN, you're stupid. ... Then there ARE AXIOMS, TOO, dumbass. ... > About the multiple representation of ordinals as sets, ... > powerset of a set X, P, with the script P to delineate it from the ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: infinity
    ... You seem to want a can of precooked axioms with which ... > think I am stupid for doing so, ... > spoon out your deductions. ... > Your proper deductions depend on the proper induction of ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: tommy1729 set axioms
    ... my axioms, now i did. ... thus -> axiom 0) hagman is stupid. ... or should i say hagman is stupid QED? ... a set theory that disagrees with all of ZFC would be silly of course. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Never forget *why* there is GNU+Linux
    ... integer set of numbers to encode the integer 2 from the given axioms. ... You are delusional, in totality, if you believe otherwise. ... "The _last_ thing I want is a bunch of Windummies begging for rescue from their own stupid mistakes** all of the time. ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)