In article <email@example.com>, "LudovicoVan" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> "Zuhair" <email@example.com> wrote in message > news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > > On Nov 16, 11:36 am, "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! > >> > >> > 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. > >> > >> 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. > > > > Good advice for you actually, since you don't know what you are > > speaking about. So just try to read what is written here, and if you > > don't understand what is written, or you have some problem with it, > > then just try to ask politely about it, so that I or others who are > > more informed that you can explain matters to you. Anyhow standard set > > theory "ZFC" is of course not limiting itself to the potential > > scenario, not even to the one I've presented here, that's why it > > accepts Impredicative definitions, as well as non well founded > > versions of it, the reason is that it doesn't have a problem with > > considering the possibility that all sets in the universe of discourse > > are GIVEN beforehand, and Godel's have stated that there is nothing > > wrong with this assumption, so there is no problem with considering > > that the set N is already Given, i.e. it is there beforehand with all > > its elements, i.e. N is a completed actual infinite set, in standard > > set theory understanding of N is not limited to the potential of > > becoming that I've presented here. However here I showed that even if > > we assume potential infinity in the sense I've presented, which is as > > I showed here the most faithful to that concept itself, then still > > Cantor's diagonal argument applies to it. All of what I'm saying here > > is that standard set theory as customarily understood doesn't not > > restrict itself to a potential infinity context, but even if so then > > if we faithfully represent that concept of potentiality then Cantor's > > argument can be still carried on. > > As usual, you are not even wrong.
The response of someone who can't find any actual errors but still disagrees.