Re: set theory : the blunder

On Jul 11, 3:12 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)

tommy1729Y

^You are out of touch with recent work in the history
of mathematics,
particularly Garciadiego (which I cite in the
discussion below). Once
you understand Garciadiego, you will see why there is
no logical
content in Cantor's ideas.

You are very far behind in your knowledge of recent
work in the
history of mathematics. Educate yourself:

Ryskamp, John Henry, "Paradox, Natural Mathematics,
Relativity and
Twentieth-Century Ideas" (May 19, 2007). Available at
SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085

i am not behind !!

i have another vision !!


relativity and calculus do not require your modern math.

btw im arguing against cantor , which is OLD_FASHION SET THEORY , NOTHING MODERN !!

tommy1729









.

Relevant Pages