Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]


david petry wrote:
William of Ockham wrote:

My objection is that his claim is so wide-reaching that it rules out
many things as meaningless which many people would count as meaningful
(including the assertion that there exists a set containing every
subset of N, which is not on the face of it meaningless).

As I understand it, you are claiming that it is obvious to you that the
assertion that there exists a set containing every subset of N is a
meaningful assertion.

No. Do read what I say. I did not say it was obvious that the
assertion was meaningful. I said "It is not not on the face of it
meaningless", i.e. that it's not obvious that it is not meaningful.

So let me ask you a question. Applying the same logic or intuition
which forces you to believe that such an assertion is meaningful, would
you not also be forced to the conclusion that the assertion that there
exists a set containing every set is meaningful? I'd really appreciate
it if you would go into some detail about why or why not that would be
the case.


Again, while it is not obvious that it is meaningful, it is not obvious
that it is not meaningful. It is not the case, of course, but once
again I think you are getting confused being something not being the
case, and something not being meaningful.

It's not "on the face of it" meaningless to assert the existence of a
set containing every set. It seems to assert something meaningful, but
false.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
    ... MoeBlee wrote ... > david petry wrote: ... you have falsified the assertion. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: What is science?
    ... No one is claiming that extraordinary paranormal abilities are ... You could make your opposite assertion if you ... >> expect the PEAR study to be the first exception? ... I agree that the PEAR study was real science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: For All x
    ... the existence of any 'object' any less than ZFC ... Meanwhile, since your theory is weaker than ZFC, ... Pure unsupported assertion. ... object language) maps to R, we have that every axiom of your OBJECT ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: For All x
    ... the existence of any 'object' any less than ZFC ... Meanwhile, since your theory is weaker than ZFC, ... Pure unsupported assertion. ... taking as an axiom for the META-theory. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: How can there be anything?
    ... The possibility that "nothing exists" is a paradox. ... that fact alone is sufficient to disprove the ... assertion that it is possible that nothing exists. ... universe began it's existence, it didn't exist. ...
    (sci.physics)