Re: An uncountable countable set


Han de Bruijn wrote:
Mike Kelly wrote:

Han de Bruijn wrote:

Mike Kelly wrote:

What the hell are you talking about? Arguing with someone who can't
speak English is getting aggravating.

My English is much better than your Dutch.

So what? Your English is still too poor for this discussion to be
fruitful.

Still don't get the point, huh?

You are lacking even the most elementary form of politeness. It's very
impolite to cut of a discussion with somebody from a foureign country -
somebody who is doing his best to communicate with you - only because
you are obviously superior in expressing your thoughts within your own
mother's tongue.

You're a very rude person yourself, Han. I generally don't feel the
need to be civil to those who won't reciprocate.

You are misinterpreting virtually all my posts. You claim that you're
not dishonest so I have to conclude you're simply incapable of
comprehending written English. This makes this whole subthread
pointless.

I have only this kind of trouble with _you_ and nobody else on the web.

Really? You've never had anybody else other than me complain that you
misinterpret their posts? I suppose I must have hallucinated dozens of
posts I've seen of just that, then.

You've never had anyone other than me struggling to understand what the
devil you mean by your broken English? I must have hallucinated, for
example, "A little physics would be no idleness in mathematics", then
:)?

I claim that Aleph_0 is part of a formalisation that leads to an
arithmetic on natural numbers that works just how naive arithmetic
works. Do you disagree?

I disagree. Aleph_0 does NOT lead to a blah blah arithmetic on natural
numbers.

Huh? Set theory doesn't lead to an arithmetic on finite natural
numbers? What the *** are you talking about?

Set theory is just a wrapper around everything that has been known for
centuries. It adds virtually nothing to that knowledge.

The natural arithmetic existed long before aleph_0 was born.

I didn't claim otherwise. Set theory is a formalisation which leads to
an arithmetic on natural numbers, which is identical to the "naive"
natural arithmetic you are talking about.

The set theoretic formalization adds _nothing_ new to "naive" natural
arithmetic.

Precisely!

--
mike.

.

Loading