On Nov 16, 12:31 pm, Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote: > In article <k850hm$a0...@dont-email.me>, > > > > > > > > > > "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: > > "Uirgil" <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote in message > >news:uirgil-981B6A.02055216112012@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM... > > > In article <k84tuf$t0...@dont-email.me>, > > > "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: > > >> "Zuhair" <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:email@example.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. > >
LV tried to disprove Cantor? that's funny really, can he even state coherently what such a trial require so that he even make a reasonable attempt to try. The man is just ignorant that highly shouts at others to convince himself of being not.
Empty vessels make the most noise.
> > > >> > 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.