Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem

On Mar 14, 3:27 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:39:21 -0700 (PDT), Charlie-Boo
<shymath...@xxxxxxxxx> said:

...You can say that finite sets have their own individual
cardinalities if you want (number of elements), but I have found it
easier if you treat the finite sets as one class, the r.e. sets as the
second, the reals/subsets as the 3rd., etc.

Finite sets are r.e.  Does this mean your first class is included in
your second class?  Also, where do denumerable non-r.e. sets fit into
your picture?  (NB: For mathematicians, "denumerable" = "has cardinality
aleph_0", so you'll need to be careful when you frame your answer, given
that, in your unique idiolect, "aleph_0" = "finite".)

Is that the best you can some up with?

How about telling us the very best theorem that you have ever
discovered yourself?

C-B
.

Relevant Pages