Re: Cantor Confusion

stephen@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
David Marcus <DavidMarcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
David Marcus schreef:
Han de Bruijn wrote:
I'm not interested in the question whether set theory is mathematically
inconsistent. What bothers me is whether it is _physically_ inconsistent
and I think - worse: I know - that it is.
What does "physically inconsistent" mean? Wouldn't your comments be
better posted to sci.physics? Most people in sci.math are (or at least
think they are) discussing mathematics.
ONE world or NO world.

Sorry. No idea what you mean. Do you have anything to say about mathematics or would you prefer we all just ignore you?

I am guessing that he means that if all of mathematics does
not bow to his will, he would prefer mathematics not to exist
at all. You are either with Han, or you are against him.
His holy jihad can know no compromise.

Stephen

You fellers sure are dense. Han's simply saying that the universe is consistent, or it doesn't exist at all. Clearly, it exists, so obviously it's not self-contradictory. Where there is a conflict between notions, where there is paradox, there is also explanation. One has to choose the most consistent path, while integrating the widest array of ideas possible.

Hey, Han, is that about right? :)

TOny
.

Quantcast