In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "LudovicoVan" <email@example.com> wrote:
> "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.
You are the one claiming that Cantor is wrong, but he has a proof and you do not have a convincing counter-proof but your attempts to disprove Cantor have so far all fallen flat. > > >> > 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.
In ZFC, the N is an actually infinite set. So until you can show that ZFC is internally inconsistent, which no one has yet done, we have actual infinities in ZFC. > > >> 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 you have a far worse case of it > > than those you are criticizing. > > Sure, keep spamming and all that.
I notice in your own spamming a lack of any arguments relevant to the Cantor issue.