Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers

Tony Orlow wrote:
Well, this is humungous. Thanks for the effort. I am going to have to print
this out and read it over the weekend. Thanks, MoeBlee.

Tony, I get exasperated and post stridently while another part of me
wishes that I didn't. The "put up or shut" part really just means that
it doesn't make much sense for you to ask for proofs or even raise your
eyebrow increduously with scare quotes around 'proof' while you won't
even look at a book that gives all the proofs from the very start. What
I'm saying is that you need to put up (look at the proofs that are
right there in any textbook) or shut up (stop asking for proofs as if
there is any question that they exist). And, yes, of course, all proofs
are from axioms with which you disagree. But, as I mentioned in another
post, you still need to learn the proof strategies. The strategies are
just first order logic. They'll be useful, even crucial probably, for
your own theory.

I propose that rather than dealing with more back and forth continuing
from my last huge post, why don't we cut our losses now and agree to
disagree about the viability of the axioms and instead work on your own
proposed system while meanwhile looking at the deductions in set theory
keeping in mind that we can look at the deductions while not
necessarily accepting the axioms.

MoeBlee

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
    ... MoeBlee said: ... > Tony Orlow wrote: ... >>> Name your axioms, name your theory. ... > That's a theorem of set theory already. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
    ... Thanks, MoeBlee. ... are from axioms with which you disagree. ... proposed system while meanwhile looking at the deductions in set theory ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Galileos Paradox and the Project of the Reals
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... You STILL seem to be confused between how people describe set theory ... I don't argue that. ... Don't argue with the axioms, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... here we go again with "Set theory confuses...". ... what axioms of set theory are specifically involved in your "proof"? ... AS TO's memory is so full of holes, perhaps he should have it mended ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... here we go again with "Set theory confuses...". ... what axioms of set theory are specifically involved in your "proof"? ... refresh my memory. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading