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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

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 ]

Posts: 4,165
From: London
Registered: 2/8/08
Re: Peer-reviewed arguments against Cantor Diagonalization
Posted: Oct 31, 2012 4:34 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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


>>> 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.

Set theory is not responsible for your honesty, big boy.

>>> 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.

Apart from the fact that proof by consensus is not a valid argument, that's
not even true.

> At best, you can complain that either the axioms are false
> (I'm sure I don't know what that would mean)

At best? Anyway, try and ask Aatu about that: to you he might even reply.

> 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.

Again, proof by consensus is not a proof, but that is not even true: as you
should know even too well, not anyone would confirm, and this is not just
the cranks.

>>> 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.

I see we agree on something! LOL...



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 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.