Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (spamtrap_at_library.lspace.org.invalid)
Date: 11/11/04 

Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:43:31 -0500

In <320e992a.0411091141.38c7158b@posting.google.com>, on 11/09/2004
   at 11:41 AM, examachine@gmail.com (Eray Ozkural exa) said:

>The first is a piece of cake as it means that there is no halting
>program which can output a 0 or 1 for falsehood or truth of the
>proposition under consideration.

>The second seems harder, but it would involve the usage of the
>magnitude of an infinite object,

Define "infinite object". How does that explain what you mean by
"infinitary reasoning" and "abstraction of actual infinity"? Again,
what you're writing simply isn't Mathematics.

(But as you can see it's hard to define it in the only defensible
>language of metamathematics, e.g. discrete computation)

I can see no such thing. Specifically, I can't see that discrete
computation is the only defensible language. However, if you think so,
and are unable to define your terms in that language, then you should
consider the possibility that the terms are in fact indefensible.

>What do you think?

I think that the terms have no meaning. 

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org