Re: Relative Cardinality



Virgil wrote:


> According to WM's definition WMCard(irrationals) <= WMCard(rationals)
> but according to Cantor, Card(rationals) < Card(irrationals).

Therefore you should know by now that Cantor was wrong.
>
> It is easy to prove that Cantors definition produces a totally ordered
> set of cardinalities, so is self consistent as a measure of "sizes".

The emporer's new cloths!
>
> No one has proved that WM's pseudocardinalities produce a totally
> ordered set of cardinalities, so no one yet knows whether it is self
> consistent or not.

There is no set produced because there is no set.

Regards, WM

.

Relevant Pages