LudovicoVan
Posts:
3,007
From:
London
Registered:
2/8/08
|
|
Re: Matheology § 062
Posted:
Jul 8, 2012 5:38 PM
|
|
"WM" <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message
news:f66a14f3-457c-47a0-bd8a-ca2d4dd97af1@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 Jul., 19:12, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>> "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message
>> news:8dde9bea-03bb-4b48-bd99-5f7ff9f5475e@b1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>> > On 8 Jul., 19:01, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>> >> "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message
>> >>news:f030c6fd-79cf-4671-ab32-3e0dd40e1327@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > Ask yourself the question: What should remain inside?
>>
>> >> I think you miss the point: I was asking for a valid proof.
>>
>> > How can an invalid theory generate a valid proof?
>>
>> Are you kidding me? Where did you show that set theory is invalid?
>> Again:
>> either you show a *valid* proof in the language of set theory that the
>> vase
>> ends up empty (hence showing set theory unsound),
>
> What do you understand by language of set theory? It is a nonsense
> standpoint (that could be due to MoeBlee) to claim that set theory
> needs a certain language.
>
> If there is a bijection between every element m of a set M and every
> natural number, then the set M is exhausted. And in my example that is
> the case.
>
> If every natural number m leaves the urn, then there cannot any
> natural number remain in the urn. Otherwise set theory was
> inconsistent too.
There are in fact no natural numbers left in the urn. That is not to say,
and it would be incongruent to say, that the urn is empty. A source of
confusion with this problem is to mistake the balls for their labels.
>> or the Ross-Littlewood
>> paradox is just a mistake on the part of some mathematicians.
>
> The problem is neither underspecified nor ill-defined. Completed
> infinity is nonsense. Parallel: The "sum" 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... is not
> 1. 1 is only the limit. There is no infinite sum, because that would
> require an end-signal.
Nonsense is to use limits and still claim that limits make no sense.
Nonsense is to deny that Achilles reaches the tortoise or that an arrow
reaches its target.
-LV
|
|
