Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University 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 ]
J. Antonio Perez M.

Posts: 2,736
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Peer-reviewed arguments against Cantor Diagonalization
Posted: Nov 1, 2012 12:15 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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 conspiracy-tinged
>
> 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 non-cranks "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 (Ludovico-Julio, Cooper-Herc, WM, etc.) are

*also* stubbornly insistent. No logic or reason will crack their certainty in

their own infallibility.

They're lovely, indeed.



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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.