Re: Cantor and the binary tree

In article <MPG.1cffec5bbba6f1ec989d52@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Virgil said:
> > In article <MPG.1cffa53d26f03526989d31@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Virgil said:
> >
> > > > TO seems to have this desire to ignore what he regards as unpleasant.
> > > > Mathematics does not allow that luxury.
> > > >
> > > I ignore what I regard as incorrect.
> >
> > That does not make it any less mathematically valid. Actually, in view
> > of TO's level of mathematical ability, it almost does the reverse.
> >
> > > All these conclusions on the part of
> > > Cantorians are wrong, as I have explained in detail for each one, using
> > > established mathematics from other areas.
> >
> > I don't know what TO thinks he is using, but his conclusions are
> > certainly not established mathematics


> Some of my conclusions are not, but the ones I have used as proof
> against some of Cantor's conclusions are.

Firstly, you have not proved anything, secondly what TO claims is valid
enough to disprove Cantor is not valid at all.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Mathematikers declare axioms and
> > > consider them law, but they are educated guesses.
> >
> > They ARE law within that particular system of axioms.
> That's a pretty small pond for such a walrus.
> >
> > If TO thinks he can come up with a system of axioms that is better than,
> > say, NBG, let him try.
> I'll look into NBG carefully. thanks for the suggestion. Got a link with a
> good
> list of all the axioms? Thanx.
> >
> > So far, everything he has proposed contains the seeds of its own
> > destruction.
> (black clouds loom over the horizon as vultures circle overhead....)
> >
> >
> >
> > > You have a system that you
> > > think "works", but the results it derives are at odds with reality.
> >
> > You claim this, but have not shown this to the satisfaction of anyone
> > but yourself, and possibly WM.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry,
> > > cardinality of infinite sets is a sinking ship.
> >
> > Even if so, it will not have totally sunk until well after TO is dust
> > and long forgotten.


> Virgil will go down with the ship, oh Capitan!

Better than floundering in the sea without a ship, but all TO's borings
have yet to produce any weaknesses in that ship's hull.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... most of the standard axioms would get scrapped ... you claim that set theory is ... theory in which to express virtually all of mathematics. ... S (call this function 'omega pre S'). ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Robot Evolution
    ... no. Goedel proved a very limited thing about ... generated from systems of axioms "at least as ... accomplish mathematical reasoning. ... "If human reasoning about mathematics is ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Skolems Paradox and why is math the way it is?
    ... > This is not a job the axioms were ever meant to do. ... other person's interpretation require a winning strategy, no more, no ... I'm pretty sure than any model of set theory is intuitively ... figuring out how I tell what is real in mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
    ... It's the *axioms* ... Otherwise it's not an axiomatic system. ... generator to compare to a proof checker in the first place. ... The program was to be able to rewrite all mathematics starting using ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Towards a Formula for Primes
    ... I generalised the concept of a system of mathematics that moves a ... By the discovery of pseudorandomness in primes, ... I recommended that the XOR function be moved ... we have all the axioms we need in an "xor transarithmetic". ...
    (sci.math)