Re: Cantor's circular "proof" that evens = integers

"G. Frege" <nomail@invalid> wrote in message
news:8qm143h4qlalm3ma15e6qtsabue7fu0bhh@xxxxxxxxxx
On 8 May 2007 12:34:23 -0700, george <greeneg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


If you are curious, * is defined the following way:

(a) n * 0 = 0
(b) n * m' = n * m + n

That is the Peano Arithmetic definition.

It's _also_ the usual set theoretic one. (You know, recursion
theorem, etc.)


That is the inductive definition that *I* would've been
using in MY proofs IF you and Jesse Hughes and
MoeBlee had ever SHUT THE HELL UP FOR TWO
SECONDS so that Phil would have a chance of looking
at proofs based on THREE axioms instead of a dozen
(two of which are infinitary).

Hmmm. But HOW can you prove _anything_ concerning *sets* without
working in the context of a set theory, in the first place?

I guess this means that George is guilty of committing the error I was
attributing to Phil in answering another thread by Mr. Srinivasan. Sorry
about that.

karl m



.