"Zuhair" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > 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.
It's your inability and then lies that don't get far.