Uirgil
Posts:
181
Registered:
4/18/12
|
|
Re: Cantor's argument and the Potential Infinite.
Posted:
Nov 16, 2012 4:31 AM
|
|
In article <k850hm$a03$2@dont-email.me>,
"LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
> "Uirgil" <uirgil@uirgil.ur> wrote in message
> news:uirgil-981B6A.02055216112012@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM...
> > In article <k84tuf$t03$1@dont-email.me>,
> > "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
> >> "Zuhair" <zaljohar@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:5e28971d-adb1-49ae-878f-db9ebaf2621c@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > 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.
|
|
