On Jan 4, 12:37 pm, MoeBlee <modem...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 8:27 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > MoeBlee wrote: > > > "And indeed set theory is not consistent with the claim that > > > there are only finite sets. Set theory is not consistent with the > > > claim "there does not exist an x such that there is no bijection > > > between x and some natural number". And that's all you [WM] need to > > > say > > > about it. All the rest of your "proofs" and arguments are > > > superfluous. > > > We already agree that set theory is not consistent with the statement > > > that all sets are finite." > > All this "this then that if" is not getting anywhere. > > I didn't write anything like "this then that if". > > I just made the straigtforward point quoted above. > > MoeBlee
Which is blatantly false and deliberately misleading, and when corrected you attack the syntax of the correction. When asked to substantiate you attack the leading generalised comment.
You have nothing to say except what you believe.
That there *EXISTS* an infinite set is obscure hogwash at it's finest!