Re: Question: Given |X|>0 and |Y|>0, can X x Y be empty?

On Aug 8, 2:47 pm, george <gree...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Oh, BULL.
Practically every respondent ALWAYS TELLS YOU EXACTLY
where your gaps are! I know I do. In a message you are not replying
to, I told you that the gap was that you had not defined A or f_A and
that
THAT was EXACTLY where your gap was. But I don't see you bothering to
try to fill it.

And so I changed the proof to fill in the gaps. Unfortunately, I
haven't been able to post it because of everyones frustration.


WHy are you even trying to disagree with Cantor's theorem in the first
place??

Because I do not understand something about the proof itself.

Does it not occur to you that since there are proofs of it in books,
IT OBVIOUSLY
MUST be right?? Why don't you instead point to some SINGLE SIMPLE

I've never had a problem with the deduction, its the implicit
assumptions. I read on a site somewhere (I think www.crank.com, but
can't be sure) where an editor of a journal posted information about
why so many people continue to challenge Cantor's Theorem and all the
mistakes they made. But far the largest was in deduction; ie, flaws in
creating proofs. He said the least area people tried to refute it is
the assumptions. I've already recognized and ackowledged long ago that
the proof itself is solid. The problem is I've never come across a
book that addresses the assumptions.

INDIVIDUAL
piece of the proof that you don't understand, and offer a simple
counter-
argument TO THAT? IF you "aced propositional logic" then that
shouldn't
be hard.

No problem. See my simple example is previous post.


Here is one: READ A BOOK.
Do you really need someone to recommed you a book?!?

Read a book: I have "Set Theory and its Philosophy" and "The Joy of
Sets".


I tried asking for a "logic buddy",

That will also work. I am qualified.
But you have to be able to admit that you are messing up.
Most people have too much undeserved ego to use me.

Then I will take you up on your offer. Would you like to do it through
email or posting to the newsgroup. I have no problem admitting when I
am wrong.


someone who can
convert ideas into mathematical notation,

idiot: THAT is NOT a logic buddy!

Mistake in that statement. I would like a logic buddy as someone who I
can present proofs and they can point out flaws and areas to further
study. For example, in a previous thread I put forth the idea that the
infinite set of denumerable strings can be mapped to the set of
natural numbers. People pointed out that natural numbers are finite
length. I acknowledged my lack of understanding led to a faulty proof
and moved on to start studying the fininteness of natural numbers.
Propose, find flaw, learn, repeat.

Logic does not give a HOOT about "mathematical notation"!

So why do you?

Neither do you, as long as you are going to keep writing (Ex)
(whatever).
THAT IS STUPID notation! As Arturo OUGHT to have figured out by now,
from
the trouble it has put you into.

This is the notation of my book "Set Theory...". Others have said it
is a good book so I stick with the notation. Its simple, concise, and
easy to understand. And the notation doesn't seem to the problem with
the proof.


but no one is interested.

That is NOT at all true.
EVERYbody wants SOMEbody to feel superior to.

So true. And frankly, that is the feeling I get from you. You're not
really interested in helping me as opposed to just yelling and trying
to bolster yourself up.


I have tried going through some of the problems in the books I have (for
those which have solutions) and I am getting them right.

Nobody here believes that, ESPECIALLY if you are stupid enough to be
asking questions like "how do you prove a subset does not exist" and
denying the axiom of separation and expecting to find some flaw in
a proof of Cantor's theorem. THIS IS NOT NORMAL behavior,
ESPECIALLY
not normal for people who are actually SHOULD be "doing" logic.

Really. Then I ask for enlightenment. How does one "do" logic? I
always thought it was find a problem or propose a theory and back it
up with proofs.

EVERY time you post something stupid, people TELL YOU TO STOP
doing it that way and TELL YOU TO START doing it this way:
JUST OBEY THEM.
It Really Is Just That Simple.

I do, except for those individuals who prefer to yell and call names.

I told you 5 times already to STOP writing (Ex)(whatever) and START
writing
Ex[cond(x)]. THAT'S One alternative, one you have THUS far been NOT
all for.
IF you would start doing that then it would become possible to explain
to you
WHAT A WFF IS.

But (Ex)(whatever) *is* correct notation. See "Set Theory and its
Philosophy". My problem with your posts is you focus on notation
(being different from your favorate) and claim that as ignorance for
understanding set theory. People have used x in s, x \in S, and xeS to
mean the same thing. Who really cares which one a person uses. Not
interested in starting a religious war over which one is "correct". As
long as it is clear when is meant, let people use their favorite
notation.


Something that you somehow managed to miss in all your books is that
0) propositional logic is also called 0th-order logic;

How does this relate to the proof?

1) if you pretend that conjunctions and disjunctions can be infinitely
long, and

Where in the proof was that occuring?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantors definition of set
    ... Frege's talk of 'extensions' by talk of 'sets' and use the following ... we sometimes render Frege's notation in this more ... "Frege next explained how Basic Law V implies the Naive Comprehension ... NF is as close to a "naive set theory" (or rather a set ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Why float is called as float, not real?
    ... months of the announcement of his work the set theory technicians had ... cardinality of the reals then the continuum hypotheis is that C = X_1. ... Notation has a bad habit of drifting over time. ... as stated in the first sentence, then the last statement amounts to the ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Kuratowski Ordered Pair
    ... There's no such generalization in Z set theory. ... books so that I can better follow along what you're saying. ... it help ME if I knew where you notation is coming from. ... mathematics that is already abundantly explained in all kinds of ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: is this a set?
    ... I must admit my set theory is not ... There IS a notation for unordered pairs. ... axioms of the underlying set theory. ...
    (sci.math)