
Re: Peerreviewed arguments against Cantor Diagonalization
Posted:
Nov 1, 2012 12:15 AM


On Thursday, November 1, 2012 12:38:03 AM UTC+2, Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> writes: > > > > > "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@phiwumbda.org> wrote in message > > > news:87mwz2qu53.fsf@phiwumbda.org... > > >> "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> writes: > > >>> "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@phiwumbda.org> wrote in message > > >>> news:87txtaqxih.fsf@phiwumbda.org... > > > <snip> > > > > > >>>> 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. > > > > Who the fuck said anything about proof by consensus? > > > > And, surely, if the argument is invalid, perhaps you can point out the > > invalid step. > > > > For that, of course, we should be clear on what argument we are > > discussing. There are various arguments that go by the name "Cantor's > > theorem". The easiest to analyze, of course, is the proof that, for all > > sets X, X < PX. Are you prepared to show me how that argument is > > invalid? If so, we can discuss it. > > > > But I'm not going on some vague, meandering and conspiracytinged > > rantfest. If you want to claim that the proof is invalid, you have to > > show me the step which is invalid. > > > > >> 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. > > > > And, again, to say that "anyone can confirm the validity" is not proof > > by consensus, you tedious twat. > > > > And, as far as noncranks "not confirming" the validity, well, that is > > the subject of this discussion. Can you name a single, reputable source > > that disputes whether ZFC proves Cantor's theorem? (NOTE: I'm talking > > about a particular formal theory here, so the various mathematicians who > > gave philosophical disputes over Cantor's informal argument are > > irrelevant to our purposes here, unless those disputes can explicitly > > show an invalid step in this very simple proof.) >
Most cranks are deeply stupid. Ours (LudovicoJulio, CooperHerc, WM, etc.) are
*also* stubbornly insistent. No logic or reason will crack their certainty in
their own infallibility.
They're lovely, indeed.

