Re: set theory : the blunder
- From: tommy1729 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:42:43 EDT
On Jul 11, 6:12 pm, tommy1729 <tommy1...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
in other topics where was discussed about cantorsets
)
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
i was mainly talking about cantor in the old days ....
tommy1729
.
- References:
- Re: set theory : the blunder
- From: philneo2001
- Re: set theory : the blunder
- Prev by Date: Re: Primes and Expanded Pythagorean Triples of the form (a+b)(a-b)^p-1=c^p
- Next by Date: Re: x^4+y^3=z^3
- Previous by thread: Re: set theory : the blunder
- Next by thread: Re: set theory : the blunder
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
