Re: Cantor Confusion

mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
MoeBlee schrieb:
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
No. We have to accept that there are sets which are capable of
growing, as Fraenkel et al. express it. Then we have finite sets without
a largest element. Then we describe reality correctly.

You're a dishonest fool.

If you continue to loose your self control in this way, then I will
have to cease discussing with you.

If only you would do so.

--
David Marcus
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... as Fraenkel et al. express it. ... You're a dishonest fool. ... and Levy mean by the universe of sets "growing" (THEIR ... out of context quotes to misconstrue and misrepresent, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... as Fraenkel et al. express it. ... You're a dishonest fool. ... and Levy mean by the universe of sets "growing" (THEIR ... finite sets without a largest element. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... as Fraenkel et al. expess it. ... and Levy mean by the universe of sets "growing" (THEIR ... finite sets without a largest element. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... as Fraenkel et al. express it. ... and Levy mean by the universe of sets "growing" (THEIR ... finite sets without a largest element. ... You misunderstand Fraenkel and you misunderstand me. ...
    (sci.math)