"Uirgil" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:uirgil-981B6A.02055216112012@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM... > 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.
If an argument is wrong, you should show that it is so or just pass, the rest is at best OT.
>> > 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.
That is only because you are so incoherent as to insist to call N an actual infinity.
>> 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.