Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Nov 2006 13:14:53 -0800
To mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
P.S.
About a couple of weeks ago you presented an argument about trees, and
as you presented your argument, as you described it, it was clearly
reasonable to regard you as intending that as a proof in set theory (it
would have been UN reasonable to think the contrary). But later you
switched, so that your argument was not to be taken as in set theory.
Now, when I say that I am giving a proof in set theory, and after I
discuss that with you while having reminded you of that so many times,
you switch not your OWN argument this time, but you switch to make the
terms of MY argument subject to criticism for USING AN AXIOM OF SET
THEORY!
I'm really very curious what satisfaction you get from such games you
play.
There can't be any intellectual satisfaction in such mindless games. So
what is it get from them?
MoeBlee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: devreden
- Next by Date: Re: Counting of lattice points
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading