Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem

Charlie-Boo <shymathguy@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

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?

Right. You've got him beat. You've come up with *lots* of great
theorems, so what does it matter that your logic is an utterly
incoherent mess?

--
"Memoirists like Frey and Augusten Burroughs belong to the long list of
those who should never have stopped using drugs. The drugs might have
made Frey more interesting, or they might have killed him. Either way,
American literature would have benefited." --John Dolan, www.exile.ru
.

Relevant Pages
Loading