|
|
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.
>Please get your head out of your ass
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
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
|
|
