"Sylvia Else" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote > On 18/06/2010 10:40 AM, Transfer Principle wrote: >> On Jun 17, 6:56 am, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote: >>> On 15/06/2010 2:13 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>> the list of computable reals contain every digit of ALL possible >>>> infinite sequences (3) >>> Obviously not - the diagonal argument shows that it doesn't. >> >> But Herc doesn't accept the diagonal argument. Just because >> Else accepts the diagonal argument, it doesn't mean that >> Herc is required to accept it. >> >> Sure, Cantor's Theorem is a theorem of ZFC. But Herc said >> nothing about working in ZFC. To Herc, ZFC is a "religion" >> in which he doesn't believe. > > Well, if he's not working in ZFC, then he cannot make statements about > ZFC, and he should state the axioms of his system.
Can you prove from axioms that is what I should do?
If you want to lodge a complaint with The Eiffel Tower that the lift is broken do you build your own skyscraper next to the Eiffel Tower to demonstrate that fact?
> >> >> Else's post, therefore, is typical of the posts which seek >> to use ZFC to prove Herc wrong. > > Part of the problem, as others have noted, lies in determining what it > is that Herc thinks he's proving. His assertions become inpenetrable as > an increasing function of their distance from the start of his posting.
heheh. That's my favorite Simpson's quote, "The potential for mischief varies inversely with one's proximity to the authority figure.".