Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11:10:19 -0700
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 02:46:06 -0500, David Marcus
<DavidMarcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Franziska Neugebauer schrieb:
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
And the power set of this set is a finite set too. And so on, in
infinity ... (potential infinity , of course)
You still have not yet understood the concept of inifinite sets.
I have understood the concept and its failure.
If you've really understood it, please demonstrate this. State a theorem
and give its proof in standard set theory.
Why standard set "theory". I mean what exactly makes standard set
"theory" definitive and exhaustive? Is it true? And if not why should
anyone analyze sets in such terms to the exclusion of other terms?
~v~~
.
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Franziska Neugebauer
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):