
Re: Cantor's argument and the Potential Infinite.
Posted:
Nov 17, 2012 8:19 PM


In <k84tuf$t03$1@dontemail.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 Email subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive Email. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

