Re: Cantor Confusion

In article <1176731602.159201.47070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 16 Apr., 14:27, "William Hughes" <wpihug...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 16, 7:53 am, mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



If every finite node of a path means the whole path (you never
contradicted *that*), then "every finite part of the path" means "the
whole path".

So what?

i finite parts of the path have property X

ii the whole path is the union of the finite parts of the path

This does not imply that

iii the whole path has property X.

Look for the answer of *** T. Winter: "the whole path is not the union
of the finite parts of the path"

Guess why?

Because those 'finite parts' are not merely sets?

Unions of things which are not mere sets may not exist at all, and even
if they exist as unions of sets they need not have the properties of
their constituent parts.

WM habitually elides a lot of mathematically necessary issues to jump to
his unjustifiable conclusions.
.

Quantcast