The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Peer-reviewed arguments against Cantor Diagonalization
Replies: 23   Last Post: Nov 2, 2012 1:46 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Jesse F. Hughes

Posts: 9,776
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Peer-reviewed arguments against Cantor Diagonalization
Posted: Oct 31, 2012 4:11 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

"LudovicoVan" <> writes:

> "Jesse F. Hughes" <> wrote in message

>> "LudovicoVan" <> writes:
>>> "Jesse F. Hughes" <> wrote in message

>>>> "LudovicoVan" <> writes:
>>>>> "Jesse F. Hughes" <> wrote in message

>>> <snipped>

>>>>>> But when we judge your capacity for reasoning in general, we may well
>>>>>> remember your screed that ZFC is a falsehood perpetrated on the masses
>>>>>> just because, well, the illuminati are so darned used to lying that
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> lie about math, too.

>>>>> I judge too mate, and you now find out where exactly I said that ZFC is
>>>>> the root of evil.

>>>> To be perfectly honest, I've no idea how I ought to interpret the above
>>>> response. I've no idea what you mean.
>>>> Are you indeed honestly saying that ZFC is the root of evil? Or is this
>>>> sarcastic? For myself, I haven't a clue.

>>> Argh! My bad (English): I meant to say please find out where exactly I
>>> said
>>> that ZFC is the root of evil, intending that I have never said any such
>>> thing. My tirades have to do with global politics and policies, not with
>>> this or that specifics.

>> I never said you thought that set theory was a root of evil, but, near
>> as I can figger, you said that it was a symptom of a lying culture which
>> lies just 'cause it can.

> You could say because it wants, not because it can: anyway, you rephrase it
> as a 13 year old would, but yes, let's say you almost got it, son, though
> not quite. OTOH, I am pretty sure you could do better, if only you could be
> any little more honest.

Sorry, I've studied too much set theory to be honest, I guess.
>> In an honest culture, we would all admit that
>> set theory is a plain falsehood.

> No, I have never said that: there are indeed things that I find are patently
> wrong, the standard theory of cardinality being one of them, but that does
> not mean I'd discard the baby too. Not to mention that we all have "search"
> strategies, and a world of fools and criminals means just do not expect that
> I be a gentlemen. It's a war, mate.

See, here's the weird thing. The theorems of ZFC can be confirmed by
anyone. At best, you can complain that either the axioms are false
(I'm sure I don't know what that would mean) or that the logic we use is
mistaken (and that's a mighty hard sell). But it is undeniable that ZFC
proves for all X, |X| < |PX|. Anyone can confirm that the proof is a
valid argument.

>> If this is an accurate representation of what you meant, then you are
>> indeed an idiot.

> It is far from accurate, but no worries: I still have way to go before
> I can compete with you at that level.

>> If not, feel free to correct my misunderstanding of your insights.
> As long as you have no ethics, you remain incorrigible.
> Now, have we finished with this confrontation? Even Virgil is losing his
> temper...

Well, to be sure, Virgil is also an idiot, so I don't take him as a
standard for my argument.

"So yeah, do the wrong math, and use the ring of algebraic integers
wrong, without understanding its quirks and real mathematical
properties, and you can think you proved Fermat's Last Theorem when
you didn't." -- James S. Harris on hobbies

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.