Re: Cantor Confusion

mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
MoeBlee schrieb:


I think if one swells to explosion about his knowledge of set theory,
he should at least know the very foundation. But I know, that you do
not even understand the simple texts of Fraenkel et al.

No, YOU radically MISunderstand what Fraenkel, Bar-Hillel, and Levy
wrote.

How can you judge about that without the slightest idea of what they
wrote?

Quite a while ago I had read that whole book. Upon your mentioning the
quote, I re-read the quote in the book, re-read the section in which
the quote appears, and re-read the chapter in which the section
appears, and re-read several other parts of the book.

Only for the lurkers: Fraenkel et al. write: "Platonistic point
of view is to look at the universe of all sets not as a fixed entity
but as an entity capable of "growing", i.e., we are able to "produce"
bigger and bigger sets."

That's part of what they wrote. You need to UNDERSTAND the section and
the discussion leading to that quote to understand it. You don't.

So a set (like the set of all sets) is not a
fixed entity.

WRONG. You just keep saying that, but ignore the rest of Fraenkel,
Bar-Hillel, and Levy's discussion, and also you just keep skipping past
my own on-point replies to you on this matter.

Meanwhile, you are ignorant of even such basic set theory as
proving the existence of an identity function.

I think of a correct proof, not of blowing hot air.

If you can't think of a proof that the identity function exists for any
set, then you are ignorant of basic set theory.

The information I require about the very basis of this discussion was
specified in my previous posts - the ones I wrote a couple of week ago
and which I mentioned yet again, but which you yet again ignore. I took
the effort to compose those questions for you at that time. If you want
me to consider your argument, then please respond to those posts. I'm
not inclined to recompose my questions for you again after I already
carefully composed them.

Which posts? When posted?

The ones Lester Zick responded to with his "my way or the highway"
remark.

By copy and paste you should be able to
repeat those questions.

I already took the time to compose the posts. I'm not inclined to use
up more of my time tracking them down for you after you've ignored
them. Find them on your own time, or don't, but then don't expect me to
address your tree argument until you do answer them.

I saw only the question whether I believed that
a proof in ZFC was possible.

Then you didn't read the posts.

Should this question decide whether such a
proof is really possible?

Of course not. What a silly question.

MoeBlee

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... No, YOU radically MISunderstand what Fraenkel, Bar-Hillel, and Levy ... quote, I re-read the quote in the book, re-read the section in which ... then please respond to those posts. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: REDCAFE.net meltdown tread
    ... Old Yesterday, 15:39 #1062 (permalink) ... Posts: 13,601 ... Kinky Melinky is offline Reply With Quote ...
    (uk.sport.football.clubs.liverpool)
  • Re: Today
    ... It's my posts that are the reviews here. ... Josh is not reviewing ... Clearly if I quote a book, ... the review is not "exactly equal" to the book in any sense. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: A lot of bull on the radio
    ... cannot stand" posts for a good number of years;however, ... buffs must have some even famous artists we "do not get." ... But LJO IS AN IDIOT..Where have you been??? ... He lives in his own little sick world...and loves to quote ...
    (rec.music.opera)
  • Re: Peanos space-filling curve
    ... inventing data that would normally ... You seem to quote this guy quite often in your posts. ... I quote Dylan. ...
    (sci.fractals)