Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (spamtrap_at_library.lspace.org.invalid)
Date: 11/23/04
- Next message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: what's wrong with this proof?"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: what are the correct set theory axioms?"
- Maybe in reply to: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:15:34 -0500
In <320e992a.0411201803.345d1645@posting.google.com>, on 11/20/2004
at 06:03 PM, examachine@gmail.com (Eray Ozkural exa) said:
>It is obvious what cardinality means,
Despite which you fail to understand.
>and it is not a definite thing,
See. I told you so.
>because THIS PARADOX EXISTS.
More handwaving.
>If you do not understand WHY this is a paradox this is your problem.
In other words, you know that there is no paradox but refuse to admit
it.
>Do you accept that there is a paradox or not?
I certainly don't. If you want o convince anyone that there is a
paradox, you will have to do so with rational arguments, not mere
assertions nostandard definitions and hand waving.
>Definitions are exactly that which are contested.
Prejudice against existing definitions is not evidence of a paradox.
An honest comment would have distinguish between dislike of a
definition and flaws in the arguments using that definition. In
Mathematics, all that is required of a definition is that the
arguments using it consistently are valid, although there are elements
of esthetics that come into play when evaluating a proposed new term.
-- 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
- Next message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: what's wrong with this proof?"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: what are the correct set theory axioms?"
- Maybe in reply to: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- Next in thread: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|