Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory

On 20 Jul., 19:43, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
..

And this is the third in a pattern of evasion:

(1) Definition of 'is a function'. NOW you are claiming that all this
time you were talking about defining particular functions and not just
the predicate 'is a function' even though that is BLATANTLY
inconsistent with all of the previous discussion including your part
in it.

I saod an I say that a function is not a function without having
domain and range. If understand something else then it is your
problem. Full stop.

(2) Definition of 'is countable'. You keep evading just answering why
you gave a definition that requires choice for equivalence with the
standard definition of 'is countable'.

My definition of "countable" as finite or in bijection with N is the
usual one and does not need choice. Full stop.

(3) Definition of 'potentially infinite'. You switched to a DIFFERENT
EXAMPLE of potentially infinite when I asked you why you gave a
definition of 'potentially infinite' that is equivalent to an ordinary
set theoretic definition of 'infinite'.

I did not switch. Potentially infinite is "always finite but without
bound". Full stop.

And this has been definitely my last statement to this topic.

Regards, WM

.