Re: How many real numbers are there?
- From: Eric Schmidt <eric41293@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:44:05 -0600
Mike Deeth wrote:
Jonathan Hoyle wrote:
<most of rant snipped>
is countable. Let r be a real number. By our above observations, r is
just some ZF set, and hence r in S_i for some i, hence S in T.
(snip)
You appear to be confusing the theory (ZFC) with your model (R). You
realize that ZFC does have both countable and uncountable models, don't
you?
Jonathan Hoyle
Nowhere in the constructions of the real numbers do we make any
assumptions that we are in some exotic set theory with supernatural
powers. This is not X-Men mathematics! The set T which I contructed
in my original post satisfies all the axioms of ZF and therefore the
contructions of the reals work fine therein. For those who naysay
because of choice, it would be trivial to alter my definition to
include that as well. Please stop picking on strawmen and admit the
deep flaw in the Cantor Cabal.
You have not proved that every set (or even every real number) is in some S_i. In fact, you yourself construct a set not in any S_i, namely T. Therefore you have not found any flaw in set theory.
Your mistake is thinking all real numbers are constructible.
--
Eric Schmidt
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How many real numbers are there?
- From: Mike Deeth
- Re: How many real numbers are there?
- References:
- How many real numbers are there?
- From: Mike Deeth
- Re: How many real numbers are there?
- From: Jonathan Hoyle
- Re: How many real numbers are there?
- From: Mike Deeth
- How many real numbers are there?
- Prev by Date: Re: Prime numbers
- Next by Date: Re: Unique ID for authors
- Previous by thread: Re: How many real numbers are there?
- Next by thread: Re: How many real numbers are there?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|