Re: Cantor and the binary tree

In article <1121624594.599056.160300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Virgil wrote:
>
>
> >
> > So that WM's definition is found to be flawed, as was to be expected,
> > and "relative cardinality" is down the tubes, where it belongs.
>
> You would like that? Why? In order to circumvent any problem exclude
> the intersection of A and B before comparing their relative
> cardinalities.
>
> Regards, WM

WM's relative cardinality certainly is no improvement over Cantor
cardinality for "finite" sets, and as it doesn't do anything useful for
"non-finite sets", it is of no more use than tits on a bull.

It has been introduced purely to impose an "axiom" on all of mathematics
which would, if allowed, seriously disrupt a great deal of mathematics.
It would very likely similarly disrupt a good deql of physics,
chemistry, etc., if it were to be imposed on everyone.

Fortunately, the vast majority of mathematicians will probably never
even hear of WM's attempted ukases, and only such of us as have some
idle time even bother with him.

I suspect that by now the vast majority of those who even bother to read
sci.math have killfiled WM and all his threads.

I strongly recommend to those who are not reading these threads purely
for amusement to killfile them all, as they are not edifying.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why does everyone do it?
    ... applied to mathematics. ... There are all sorts in sci.math who argue against set theory. ... When it comes to uncountable ordinals, say those of cardinality aleph_1, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... in so far as cardinality can be said to be a "measure" of an infinite set. ... Whether comparison of sets in terms of cardinality meets the criteria associated with some notion of "measurement" can of course be questioned, but has pretty much nothing to do with modern set theory. ... If set theory is a generalization of all mathematics, then none of the general conclusions it draws should be at odds with any of the specific conclusions drawn throughout mathematics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... :>: be preferred in mathematics or science simply because it is more ... :>:> implications of cardinality. ... definition of number of elements that gave rise to the bijection approach ... The "size" of the sets of octal and decimal strings remain the same ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... :>: be preferred in mathematics or science simply because it is more ... :>:> implications of cardinality. ... definition of number of elements that gave rise to the bijection approach ... The "size" of the sets of octal and decimal strings remain the same ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... :>: be preferred in mathematics or science simply because it is more ... :>:> implications of cardinality. ... definition of number of elements that gave rise to the bijection approach ... The "size" of the sets of octal and decimal strings remain the same ...
    (sci.math)