In article <email@example.com>, "LudovicoVan" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> "Zuhair" <email@example.com> wrote in message > news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > > > We still can characterize Cardinality in this setting. > > And you keep missing the point, as the various objections of course involve > that the standard definition of cardinality for infinite sets is wrong!
But as far as any valid arguments are concerned, it appears AT LEAST equally likely that the various objections are the things that are wrong. > > > So Cantor's diagonal is applicable to potential infinity context! > > Cantor's arguments are *only* applied to potentially infinite sets, in fact > in standard set theory there is no such thing as actual infinity at all.
ZFC offers a standard set theory in which actually infinite sets are not only allowed but actually required to exist, and no one yet has been able to show that ZFC is not a perfectly sound set theory. > > Please get your head out of your ass and read and try to understand what you > are rebutting before you actually get to do it.
AS far as head-in-ass-itis, LV appears to have a far worse case of it than those he is criticizing.