On 18/06/2010 3:03 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <email@example.com> 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? >
That's hardly a valid analogy.
If you're attempting to show that ZFC is inconsistent, then say that you are working within ZFC.
If you're not working withint ZFC, then you're attempting to show that some other set of axioms is inconsistent, which they may be, but the result is uninteresting, and says nothing about ZFC.