Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.

In article <1172052121.995282.219000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:


In any model of ZFC the ZFC axioms are valid. With them there exists
the empty set (usually by axiom). With the empty set there exists the
set omega (by axiom f infinity) and with omega there exists the power
set of omega (by axiom of power set). Why should there exist all these
elements but not a mapping, not even the identity mapping?

Who says there aren't any mappings?

Tarkski and Banach showed that ZFC has a certain result that is
puzzling at first glance. But it requires the axiom of choice; it is
not a contradiction; and (as far as I understand) would only
contradict a physical theory if matter had infinite density.

Put a marble in your living room and pray that ZFC may be valid
tonight. Perhaps your prayer is heard and our universe is full of
marbles tomorrow. Then I will believe in ZFC. Otherwise you should
begin to suspect it.

WM seems to have lost his marbles. When marbles are made of up only of
points, as spheres are, only then can they, a la banach-Tarski, breed.

That WM does not yet understand the difference between physical marbles
and geometric spheres is a measure of his ignorance.
.

Quantcast