Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Calvin <crice5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 18:56:20 -0700
On Jul 11, 12:43 am, Calvin <cri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 11, 12:26 am, Proginoskes <CCHeck...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
THE ONLY SETS WHICH EXIST ARE FINITE SETS. THE INFINITE IS ONLY A
PRODUCT OF THE IMAGINATION.
Then what is the largest natural number?
Getting back to this original response, some have said
that there not being a largest natural number does
not imply that the natural numbers comprise a set.
First, my response was keyed on the word 'finite', not
on the word, 'set'. At that point I did not know that
the definition of 'set' was an issue. So I wanted to
produce a counterexample, a set that was infinite.
The most basic infinite set, it seems to me, is the set
of natural numbers, but if it was finite, there would
have to be a largest natural number. Hence my response.
But if the original post meant that, by the poster's
definition of 'set', only finite sets may exist, then
I can't refute that, because one cannot refute a
definition. One can only express interest or lack of
interest in a particular definition, and in my
case it is lack of interest, since I see no use or
justification for such a definition of set.
If anyone would care to enlighten me ...
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Peter Webb
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- References:
- Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Proginoskes
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Calvin
- Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Prev by Date: Period of rational numbers relating to the denominator of the number
- Next by Date: Re: Some Thoughts on the Four Color Theorem
- Previous by thread: Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Next by thread: Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
