On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:23:36 -0700 (PDT), Transfer Principle <email@example.com> wrote:
>On Mar 11, 11:33 pm, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote: >> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 01:15:21 -0500, quasi <qu...@null.set> wrote: >> >"DavidW" wrote: >> >If you use your own assumptions about constructibility of sets, >> >and if those assumptions make it impossible for a set to have >> >infinitely many elements, then all you have is a proof >> >(a self-fulfilling proof) that infinite sets don't exist in >> >_your_ system. > >And how do we know that every nonempty set has a choice >function? One does so by using one's own assumptions about >the existence of choice functions (AC), so all you have a >self-fulfilling proof that every set has a choice function >in _your_ system (ZFC).
TP, are you a moron, or what?
I'm not claiming that his system can't be structured as a consistent logical system (even though it's clear that the OP lacks the skills to actually set up such a system). My objection was to the OP's claim that our system (ZFC for example) is self-contradictory. Now do you get it?
The OP made it very clear that _our_ system (ZFC say) has built-in _contradictions_. To prove that, he has to use _our_ axioms, _our_ definitions, and _our_ logical framework and somehow produce a contradiction. The OP doesn't have a clue as to what that entails, but still claims to have proved that our system is self-contradictory, thus making it clear that he's a crank.
You _do_ understand that, but as in your reply above, you sidestep that issue completely -- an obvious deliberate diversion from the key issue, so clearly, you're a troll.