Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory

Calvin wrote:

On Jul 14, 12:11 am, Proginoskes <CCHeck...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nope. This is the mistake: You are assuming that N can
be constructed in the first place.

I dealt with that in my proof, below, part of which is

"...by the definition of N, which is that
it is comprised of the elements of the sequence 1, 2, 3, ...
(or if you prefer, 1, (1+1), (1+1+1), ...)"

That clearly is a valid construction, though it
does not use set theory notation, which no doubt
would make the definition more elegant.

You are still missing the point, which is that simply specifying what
you want to be in your set does not mean that such a set exists. You
acknowledged before that Russell's paradox proves that there is no set
of all sets. But couldn't an argument similar to the one you use
above, if it were correct, show that there is such a set? "...by the
definition of X, which is that comprised of all x such that x is a
set".

The fact is that you cannot simply declare that any collection of
elements is a set; this is what Franz meant when he wrote that

"What Russell's Paradox actually DOES show is that a set theory with
"unrestricted comprehension" is inconsistent (i.e. is not viable)."

The axiom of infinity states that the set you described exists (or
more precisely that a set containing all the elements you specified
and possibly some other elements exists, from which one can construct |
N). I do not believe that it is possible to prove that such a set
exists without the axiom of infinity.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?
    ... Thanks for the kind words you posted a few days ago: ... What he showed is that if a Halt determiner existed, ... >it could be used to construct a paradox. ... >Halt determiner leads irrevocably to the construction of a paradox, ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?
    ... Thanks for the kind words you posted a few days ago: ... What he showed is that if a Halt determiner existed, ... >it could be used to construct a paradox. ... >Halt determiner leads irrevocably to the construction of a paradox, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Axiom of choice and the three spheres.
    ... Yet their construction is not a paradox. ... You would enjoy reading The Banach-Tarski Paradox by Stan Wagon. ... Maybe he has a better intuition. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Help Clarify Godel sentence
    ... since it states it has no proof it would be false>> a contradiction. ... further axiom, you get a new theory T'. ... I suspect that the construction of G and G' have more ... we must therefore examine the methods of the mathematician." ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Infinities and infinitesimals
    ... An `infinitesimal' is the reciprocal of an infinity, namely the decay rate of a function from natural numbers to rational numbers. ... I might add that these two beliefs are "sort-of" consistent, because infinity only exists in set theory because there is an axiom which states it does exist. ... Now, if a "real" mathematician wanted to prove that "infinity doesn't exist", they would produce a proof that the axiom of infinity was inconsistent with the other axioms of ZF. ... I don't know why you bothered; Peano arithmetic itself doesn't require the axiom of infinity, so why bother producing a non-standard construction of the natural numbers at all? ...
    (sci.math)