Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Posts: 3,473 Registered: 12/4/04
Re: Cantor's argument and the Potential Infinite.
Posted: Nov 17, 2012 8:19 PM

In <k84tuf\$t03\$1@dont-email.me>, on 11/16/2012
at 08:36 AM, "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> said:

>And you keep missing the point, as the various objections of course
>involve that the standard definition of cardinality for infinite
>sets is wrong!

ROTF,LMAO! A definition can be ambiguous, unconventional or vacuous,
but it can't be wrong.

>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.

As usual, you've got it backwards; in standard set theory there is no
such thing as "potential infinity", but only sets[1], some of which
are not finite.

PKB.

[1] Or sets and classes, depending on which common set theory
you consider standard.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not

Date Subject Author
11/16/12 Zaljohar@gmail.com
11/16/12 LudovicoVan
11/16/12 Uirgil
11/16/12 LudovicoVan
11/16/12 Uirgil
11/16/12 LudovicoVan
11/16/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
11/16/12 Zaljohar@gmail.com
11/16/12 LudovicoVan
11/16/12 Zaljohar@gmail.com
11/16/12 LudovicoVan
11/16/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz