On 15/03/2012 20:42, Transfer Principle wrote: > On Mar 14, 7:41 am, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) > wrote: >> In article<3489ddd5-b8a5-4015-9b68-b4621a036...@ni10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Transfer Principle<david.l.wal...@lausd.net> writes: >>> Yet the ZFC users do this all the time. They ignore anything >>> that shows that they're wrong -- including proofs in NFU, >>> finitism, and other theories -- >> You're insane[1]. NFU can't prove ZFC "wrong", any more than Riemannian >> geometry can prove Euclidean geometry "wrong". > > Except that posters use ZFC to prove others wrong -- like DavidW's > finitism in this thread.
Nope. That hasn't happened.
> Consider the following: > > 1) ZFC proves that there's an infinite set. > DavidW's finitism proves that no such set exists. > > 2) NFU proves that there's a universal set. > ZFC proves that no such set exists. > > If you're going to use 1) to prove that DavidW is wrong,
Nobody has done that.
> Fine. Then ZFC and DavidW's finitism are different systems, and > don't have anything to say about each other.
Tell that to DavidW. In this very thread, he wrote this:
The Axiom of Infinity is self-contradictory.
Apparently he thinks his finitism has something to say about ZFC. Have any of the ZFC-users suggested that the negation of infinity is inconsistent? No, they haven't. As usual you have things completely backwards: the person you're defending is the only person to have actually done the things you're pretending to defend him from.
> Disclaimer: I'm already aware that DavidW hasn't proved the > inconsistency of ZFC or any standard theory.
