Re: Cantor and the binary tree

In article <SKKdnV6hINUKsTvfRVn-3A@xxxxxxxxxxx>, nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx
says...
> Virgil wrote:
> >
> > Since P(N) is known to be of greater cardinality than N, TO is wrong, at
> > least if his "equinumerous" means cardinality. And if it does not, he
> > should explain what his "equinumerous" does mean.
>
> With TO you can never tell what he means. He refuses you use standard
> terminology and he uses the words found in the literature with a
> different meaning which he never discloses.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
If you tried asking questions, you'd get answers, Bob, but I doubt you'd
listen, as I have offered several proofs, and pointed out specific flaws
in the logic underlying carindality.
--
Have a nice day

Tony
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantor and the binary tree
    ... >> Virgil wrote: ... >>> Since Pis known to be of greater cardinality than N, TO is wrong, at ... >> Bob Kolker ... > in the logic underlying carindality. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor and the binary tree
    ... Virgil wrote: ... least if his "equinumerous" means cardinality. ... terminology and he uses the words found in the literature with a different meaning which he never discloses. ... Bob Kolker ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Relative Cardinality
    ... Virgil ... WM's "relative cardinality" at least as defined, ... but a property of infinite sets ... set of irrationals comprises more elements than the set of reals? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity ...
    ... >>> cardinality size can be applied to every set. ... TO's "sizes" do not. ... Good, Virgil. ... > TO's pond of hogwash lies in TOmatica, and lies, and lies. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Relative Cardinality
    ... Virgil wrote: ... >> mysticism it is believed that the cardinality remains the same if the ... found out why that is impossible whereas progression from 1 to omega in ...
    (sci.math)