Re: infinity ...

Albrecht S. Storz wrote:
>> [...]
>> Since there is no biggest number and since there is no infinite number,
>> the size of the set of numbers in form of sets of #s is undefined as
>> the biggest natural number is undefined.
>>
>> But the sequence of the sets of # fullfill the peano axiomes. So this
>> set must be infinite.
>>
>> The cardinality of a set is not able to be infinite and "not defined"
>> at the same time.
>> This is the contradiction.
>

David R Tribble wrote:
>> I don't see the contradiction. The size of the set is "not defined"
>> to be the same as any natural number, and the set size is obviously
>> infinite. This is no contradiction, since no natural number is
>> infinite.
>>
>> The thing that is "not defined" is the largest natural, which obviously
>> does not exist. But the set size is infinite, and is nicely defined
>> by an infinite cardinal.
>>
>> You seem to be mixing the two concepts of "natural" and "cardinal"
>> numbers to create a supposed contradiction, but that does not work.
>

Albrecht S. Storz wrote:
> You are not able to understand that there is no difference between
> numerals and sets.

I have no problem seeing the correspondence between natural numbers
and von Neumann sets. But neither of these are the same as
cardinalities, which are not numbers, but measures (sizes) of sets.


> My sketches shows this exactly.
> Cantor proofs his wrong conclusion with the same mix of potential
> infinity and actual infinity. But there is no bijection between this
> two concepts. The antidiagonal is an unicorn.
> There is no stringend concept about infinity. And there is no aleph_1,
> aleph_2, ... or any other infinity.

For that to be true, there must be a bijection between an infinite
set (any infinite set) and its powerset. Bitte, show us a bijection
between N and P(N).

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Two results of set geometry
    ... in bijection with any row. ... infinite height, then a contradiction seems impossible. ... union of the rows. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity ...
    ... the size of the set of the naturals as sets of #s could not extend ... >> Since there is no biggest number and since there is no infinite number, ... >> the biggest natural number is undefined. ... You are unable to recognize the primitivest form of bijection? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity ...
    ... > the "biggest" number of the naturals in form of sets of Os. ... > Since there is no biggest number and since there is no infinite number, ... the contradiction is assuming that cardinality has ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
    ... theoretic concept of ordinal),then we agree that 'for any number,there ... exists a bigger number,but there is no biggest or infinite number'. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Zermelo-Fraenkel Theory Of Sets
    ... I'm not asking for your opinion, ... >If the union of infinite many objects to a set results in an infinite ... >cardinality as the biggest set which it contains in form of an element. ... Daryl McCullough ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast