Re: Cantor Confusion

In article <1178720551.560480.296960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
WM <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



I did not reject anything. I ask you whether you can put infinitely
many questions. Please answer. If the answer is no, then you should
recognize that you cannot ask whether all paths which accompany
0.101010... will get separated from it.



I would think there are only finitely many questions. But all this is not
mathematics but philosphy.

No. That is mathematics, because you imply to be able to ask
infinitely many question.


Since Wm has so often proved himself so lousy a judge of what is
mathematics, he is hardly in a position to set up as an expert on where
mathematics ends and philosophy takes over.

> > There is a subtle difference. With the diagonal proof we always
> > remain in
> > the finite.
>
> That's why it fails for numbers with infinitely many digits.

No.

Assertion, no argument.

That is WM way. We have made the arguments, but WM merely ignores them,
so now WM complains when we no longer bother to repeat what he has so
often ignored!

In fact, to establish the difference between the diagonal and any one
other only requires finitely many digits, which WM knows but chooses to
ignore.


This formula is obviously only correct for finite sets f nubers

WM changes his spots. When he is arguing, he claims that what holds for
finite cases also hold in the limit, but when others argue similarly, WM
says the opposite.


Li(x) switch place. Nevertheless, it *is* a natural number

Are you sure? Look at

What evidence is there that 2^65536 is a natural number?

The principle of induction in ZF or NBG proves that for m and n
naturals, so is m^n, at least in ZF and NBG.

What goes on in WM's world is up to him, but does not affect anyone
else's world, except possibly his students'.
.

Quantcast