Re: set theory : the blunder
- From: philneo2001@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:21:46 -0700
On Jul 11, 6:12 pm, tommy1729 <tommy1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
in other topics where was discussed about cantor sets
i said
x=(x)
they replied with ( well the most sensible replies )
then what if
(x)=(2,3,x)
it seems a paradox then claiming x = (x)
however
dont underestimate tommy1729 :
(x)=(2,3,x)
so (x)=(2,3,(2,3,x))
and (x)=(2,3,(2,3,(2,3,.....
and x=(x)=(2,3,(2,3,(2,3,......
paradox solved and x=(x)
tommy1729
I think you are out of touch with recent and very revealing work done
in the history of set theory. Here is a brief comment on some of it:
Ryskamp, John Henry, "Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and
Twentieth-Century Ideas" (May 19, 2007). Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: set theory : the blunder
- From: tommy1729
- Re: set theory : the blunder
- References:
- set theory : the blunder
- From: tommy1729
- set theory : the blunder
- Prev by Date: x^4+y^3=z^3
- Next by Date: Re: looking for a set (two)
- Previous by thread: Re: set theory : the blunder
- Next by thread: Re: set theory : the blunder
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
