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

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (spamtrap_at_library.lspace.org.invalid)
Date: 11/25/04 

Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:27:49 -0500

In <320e992a.0411220213.6a0f4071@posting.google.com>, on 11/22/2004
   at 02:13 AM, examachine@gmail.com (Eray Ozkural exa) said:

>I think "size of a set" is a very well defined term.

Obviously not, since you seem to be using a different definition of
"size", one that you have failed to elucidate.

>If cardinality of an infinite set is not a *complete* explanation
>for its size,

What do you mean by "explanation" and what do you mean by "size".

>then this can only cast doubt on the bijection account.

No, it would just cast doubt on your claim that "size" is a very well
defined term.

>Right. So, the subset account does not seem satisfactory, either.
>Hence, we have another paradox of the infinitely big.

No, we just have another demonstration that you don't have a very well
defined term "size".

>philosophical wisdom

I haven't seen any in this thread. 

-- 
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

Relevant Pages
Loading