In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 8 Jul., 06:54, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 12:15 pm, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message > > > > >news:email@example.com... > > > <snip> > > > > > > After 1 hour the urn is empty, because for every number the time of > > > > removal can be determined. So for the set X of numbers residing in the > > > > urn we obtain > > > > Lim |X| =/= |Lim X| > > > > This prevents any application of set theory to reality although it was > > > > Cantor's outspoken aim to apply set theory to reality (cp., e.g., his > > > > letter to Mittag-Leffler of Sept., 22, 1884). > > > > > That argument is simply *wrong*, it does not show a problem in set theory > > > (not in itself at least). From "every (finitely-labeled!) ball has been > > > removed at step w" one cannot conclude "the vase is empty at step w", > > > period. > > > > > -LV > > > > One can certainly conclude that the vase does not > > contain any finitely-labeled balls. If we define > > |X| to be the number of finitely-labeled balls > > then WM's conclusion follows.- > > But only in set theory - not in mathematics.
But set theory is a part of standard mathematics, even if not of WM's WMatheology, and by many mathematicians thought to be the basis/foundation of all standard mathematics
> Because in mathematics the limit of the sequence
WM is not competent to speak for standard mathematics, only for his own WMatheology. --