Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.

In article <1175190711.475562.138140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
On 29 Mrz., 16:55, "*** T. Winter" <***.Win...@xxxxxx> wrote:

> I said already several times: There is no potential infinite set with
> the meaning of "set" according to set theory, because every set
> according to set theory is actually infinite.

Why then did you *use* that term?

Because set theory has no copyright on the word "set". There are
potentially infinite sets like N. But theese are not sets in the sense
of set theory. Read chapter 10 of my book. There I explain the meaning
of the real set of natural numbers.

And that is why I have so much problems with that chapter. Your use of
standard terms without standard meanings.

However, you did use that term to show flaws in set theory. If you want
to show flaws you should conform to the theory or either be misunderstood.

I am still wondering why, when I asked you for a definition of "potential
infinite set" you referred to your page on wikipedia which does not contain
such a definition at all.
--
*** t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~***/
.

Quantcast