Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:21:43 -0700
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:19:05 -0500, David Marcus
<DavidMarcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
WM's problem is that he does not, perhaps cannot, understand that there
is a difference in the way infinite sets and infinite processes work
from the way that finite sets and finite processes work.
I think he has a bigger problem. He doesn't seem to agree that there are
infinite sets. It is very strange.
You mean if the editorial "we" agree that there are infinite sets
there are infinite sets? You have a very curious sense of words in
others but not in yourself. You claim to be able to prove things
without being able to prove they're true. And what if one doesn't
agree that there are infinite sets? Are you going to prove they're
true? Clearly like most trained in the modern mathematical arts
you don't take words seriously enough to form critical thoughts.
~v~~
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: William Hughes
- 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: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by Date: Re: Prime numbers, counting tells it all
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):