Re: Cantor Confusion


MoeBlee schrieb:

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.

Why don't you try to find out how it could be presented in set theory?
Or why that cannot be done?

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!

You misunderstood. See below.

I'm really very curious what satisfaction you get from such games you
play.

I hope that there are some lurkers who will learn what are the
consequences of accepting ZFC.

There can't be any intellectual satisfaction in such mindless games. So
what is it get from them?

I do not prohibit to use the axiom of infinity, but I show that the
consequences of its use are absurd. It leads to such results as a
diagonal which is longer than any line of a matrix or a vase which
contains zero numbers at noon or Tristram Shandy getting ready with his
diary. In the binary tree it leads the result that there are not less
edges than paths. In my opinion that is enough to prove ZFC being
wrong. If you prefer to remain within this wrong system, good luck.

Regards, WM

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Skolems Paradox and why is math the way it is?
    ... to consist mainly of bashing set theory "curing" Tarski's curse and what ... predicate for e.g. the language of arithmetic in that language ... predicate is so important to him: it's supposed to show that we can have ... a switch would look like. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... not switch to 27 but the number of states will switch from 25 to 27. ... What they understand and how this growing can take place has lead to ... then you do not understand set theory. ... There is nothing wrong with not understanding something. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... so that your argument was not to be taken as in set theory. ... It contradicts ... 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 ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... You, like many other people who do not understand set theory, ... think of sets as mutable objects, that change as we perform operations ... not switch to 27 but the number of states will switch from 25 to 27. ... Only by this notion we can talk of growing sets and ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... not switch to 27 but the number of states will switch from 25 to 27. ... all sets not as a fixed entity but as an entity capable of "growing". ... What they understand and how this growing can take place has lead to ... You, like many other people who do not understand set theory, ...
    (sci.math)