Re: Cantor Confusion


David Marcus wrote:
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
David Marcus schrieb:
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
David Marcus schrieb:
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Hi, ***,

I would like to publish our result to the mathematicians of this group
in order to show what they really are believing if they believe in set
theory.

There is an infinite sequence S of units, denoted by S = III...

This sequence is covered up to any position n (included) by the finite
sequences
I
II
III
...

What do you mean by "cover"?

A covers B if A has at least as many bars as B. A and B are unary
representations of numbers.

Example: A = III covers I and II and III but not IIII.

But it is impossible to cover every position of S.

So: S is covered up to every position, but it is not possible to cover
every position.

So, your conclusion is that no finite sequence of I's will cover S.
Correct?

Is this your entire theorem or is there more to the conclusion?

My conclusion is:
Either
(S is covered up to every position <==> S is completely covered by at
least one element of the infinite set of finite unary numbers <==> S is
an unary natural) ==> Contradiction, because S can be shown to be not a
unary natural.

Are you saying that standard mathematics contains a contradiction or
that you think mathematics should be done differently?

Muckenschleim is as usual posting fallacies. He will rant about
potential infinity and crap like that, and he never tires of construing
abstruse "illustrations" of how the concept of an infinite set of
natural numbers represented by finite strings is flawed. The really sad
issue here is that he is a teaching professor at an university.
Regards.


Or
S is not covered up to every position by unary naturals ==> The
positions of S are not defined ==> S does not exist.

There is no actual infinity, but nly potential infinity, i.e., S is not
complee but only has as many bars as you or anothe one can count.

--
David Marcus

.

Quantcast