Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory

On 16 Jul., 20:45, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1184602377.255290.254...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

WM <mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 16 Jul., 07:20, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1184550638.931818.34...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
IF one has a non-empty ordered set without a largest element, one can
easily prove

But IF one has an empty non-ordered set with a largest element, what
can one prove then?

How can there be a "largest" if there is no ordering by which to compare
sizes?

Can WM explain how to identify a largest without being able to compare
relative sizes?

Can you explain how you check all lines of an infinite list while
behind every checked line there remain infinitely unchecked lines? Of
course you can. My statement was of the same nature. I wanted to
plagiarize you. I know I failed.

Regards, WM


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantors Theory
    ... IF one has a non-empty ordered set without a largest element, ... with checking that all even numbers of 1000 digits ... numbers to convince yourself of the truth of that ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Countability of real numbers
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... compare the relative sizes of two sets as smaller, ... I rather prefer Archimedes. ...
    (sci.math)