Re: a question for the anti-Cantorians

Virgil said:
> In article <MPG.1cf80c82987d4abf989cad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Also, it is quite easy to prove the power set of a set x (infinite or
> > > otherwise) is necessarily larger than x itself -- Cantor's Theorem. Do you
> > > reject this notion as well? If so, you must also reject other conventional
> > > rules as well -- one of those used to prove this theorems.
> > I don't reject that notion at all. The powerset is more or less mapped as the
> > function y=2^x, clearly larger than y=x for x>=0.
>
> Then you are accepting |P(N)} > |N|.
>
I never rejected that notion, that I recall. You're thinking of WM, for whom
infinity doesn't exist.
--
Smiles,

Tony
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Tetration
    ... Good luck, and thanks. ... Smiles, ... Tony ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Tetration
    ... Thanks, and good luck! ... Smiles, ... Tony ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >>> Smiles, ... >>> Tony ... > 0.999...999 is the last first-level infinitesimal in the first unit. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... And both through the eye of the same needle!!! ... Smiles, ... Tony ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: abundance of irrationals!)
    ... Are you so friendely to others who don't agree with you Tony with your smiles. ... > You only state there's infinity in the naturals. ... And they sleep a night but the next day a new flock is arriving at the hotel doors. ... It's a complete other subject in pure mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)