Re: An uncountable countable set

MoeBlee wrote:
Tony Orlow wrote:
MoeBlee wrote:
Tony Orlow wrote:
No, set theory confuses the issue with its concentration on omega.
Oh boy, here we go again with "Set theory confuses...". Please just way
which axioms of set theory you reject and which ones you use instead.

MoeBlee

Uh, what axioms of set theory are specifically involved in your "proof"?
I don't remember a deduction from those axioms. Perhaps you could
refresh my memory.

My proof of what?

MoeBlee


Regarding the vase-ball problem.

Also, upon which axioms is the definition of cardinality based?

ToeKnee
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... which axioms of set theory you reject and which ones you use instead. ... I don't remember a deduction from those axioms. ... Regarding the vase-ball problem. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... which axioms of set theory you reject and which ones you use instead. ... I don't remember a deduction from those axioms. ... Perhaps you could refresh my memory. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Skolems Paradox and why is math the way it is?
    ... interpretation takes anything seriously at all. ... > believing the axioms are correct in some sense or something like that. ... Set theory was billed to me as the type-free be-all theory, ... It still doesn't mean that the reals ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
    ... > produces any infinite values. ... It's a theorem of set theory. ... Forget about axioms here. ... > naturals, the universe is the real number line which includes all quantities, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... most of the standard axioms would get scrapped ... you claim that set theory is ... theory in which to express virtually all of mathematics. ... S (call this function 'omega pre S'). ...
    (sci.math)