The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Cantor's argument and the Potential Infinite.
Replies: 17   Last Post: Nov 17, 2012 10:59 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 185
Registered: 4/18/12
Re: Cantor's argument and the Potential Infinite.
Posted: Nov 16, 2012 4:31 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <k850hm$a03$>,
"LudovicoVan" <> wrote:

> "Uirgil" <uirgil@uirgil.ur> wrote in message
> news:uirgil-981B6A.02055216112012@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM...

> > In article <k84tuf$t03$>,
> > "LudovicoVan" <> wrote:

> >> "Zuhair" <> wrote in message
> >>
> >>

> >> > 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.

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.