Re: Obections to Cantor's Theory (Wikipedia article)

Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Jesse F. Hughes said:
>>
>> The proof of Cantor's theorem is easily formalized. It's remarkably
>> short and simple and every step can be verified as correct.
>>
>> It is perfectly reasonable to assert that no such flaw exists (given
>> the axioms used in the proof). Indeed, why would anyone entertain any
>> doubts when he can confirm the correctness of each and every step of
>> the proof?
>>
>>
> In all actuality, the flaws in various proofs and assumptions in set
> theory have been directly addressed, and ignored by the mainstream
> thinkers here.

Well, your so-called flaws are not the sort that Alec means (as far as
I can tell). Your dispute is about whether certain technical notions
appropriately capture pre-theoretic intuitions about size. This has
nothing at all to do with whether Cantor's proof is correct.

Of course, one can ask whether Tony Orlow in fact has any coherent
intuitions about set size at all.

One *can* ask that, but I won't.

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"You may not realize it but THOUSANDS of people read my posts.
You are putting your stupidity on wide display."
-- James S. Harris knows about wide displays of stupidity.
.

Quantcast