Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:17:55 -0700
In article <1167759460.349040.128220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Franziska Neugebauer schrieb:
Where is a contradiction?
Read the quote below. Your answers to my questions 2 and 3 constitute a
contradiction. Please correct me if I'm wrong: #
You are wrong.
That is not a correction, burt an unproven claim.
Your answer to my question 2 states
x is identical to y
<-> there is no difference between x and y (P)
Correct. x is an idea. It is identical to the entity which you call an
irrational number, i.e., an idea y.
Your answer to question 3 states
x is different from y (due to some reason)
<-> there is a difference between x and y (Q)
You simply fail to distinguish sharply enough between y and y'.
x is different from y', i.e., from what you think an irrational number
is., i.e., from an idea which can be approximated to any given
precision by rational numbers.
That is by your definition, not anyone else's, so is only valid in your
non-system, not anyone else's.
.
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Franziska Neugebauer
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by Date: Re: The value of pi in the Bible
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|