Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: "William Hughes" <wpihughes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 Nov 2006 16:27:19 -0800
Franziska Neugebauer wrote:
William Hughes wrote:
Franziska Neugebauer wrote:
William Hughes wrote:
The length of the set of natural numbers is the supremum of the
lengths of the initial segments.
Since when do sets have a length?
Substitute size or cardinality if you do not like the term
length in this context.
It is clear to *me*. Please do me a favor and ask *WM* whether
substituting "length" by "cardinality" changes - in his eyes - the
subject of your current discussion.
I am quite willing to go to a much more formal set
of terms and definitions, but I try to use the language
preferred by whomoever I am discussing something with
so if WM insists on using informal language that is what
I will use..
Yes, my switch from "length of a line or a diagonal"
to "length of the natural numbers" was an attempt to
move back to slightly more formal language. Whether
this will work I do not know.
Note. It has become clear that at the base
we have two statements.
a: Any infinite set of numbers must contain
an infinite number
b: It is possible to have an infinite set of numbers
that does not contain an infinite number.
that cannot both be true. WM claims that a is true and that
furthermore b leads to a contradiction. However, all of the
contradictions he has been showing depend on assuming that
a is true. I would like to discuss statements a and b directly,
however, I do not think that WM will cooperate. Note that
WM has the standard crank habit or not replying to a message
unless he thinks he has a counterargument.
- William Hughes
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Franziska Neugebauer
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: William Hughes
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: William Hughes
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Franziska Neugebauer
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: William Hughes
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Franziska Neugebauer
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: orthogonal compliment
- Next by Date: Re: An inequality involving sin
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|