
Re: UNCOUNTABILITY
Posted:
Dec 20, 2012 11:02 AM


On Dec 20, 3:11 am, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 20, 7:52 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 19, 4:11 pm, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > So having parameters in the defining formulas provides the grounds for > > > POSSIBILITY of having uncountably many sets definable after them. But > > > what PROVES the existence of uncountabily many parameter definable > > > reals is of course the diagonal argument of Cantor. > > > Surely you must realize by now that attacking the diagonal argument > > (actually the direct construction of the ANTIdiagonal of a PRESUMED > > omegaXomega square) is THE #1 FAVORITE crank pastime around here. > > By posting this you are just inviting every crank from WM on down > > to do battle with you. You are new enough that this my seem > > worthwhile > > to you, BUT IT ISN'T. I'm not saying that JUST because I'm burnt out > > after 20 years. > > I'm saying it because it really is obvious from even casual > > consideration > > that LOGIC means NOTHING to these people! They DON'T CARE if you/we > > have > > a proof! THEY have THEIR canards and maxims and precepts, and THAT'S > > ALL > > THEY care about! Progress is not really possible along a merely > > intellectual > > front (merely intellectual, our position is simply far too easy to > > confirm). > > A unified wall of contempt stands a better chance. > > I didn't really read this last line. What do you mean by that? > > Zuhair
Of course our esteemed George Greene shouldn't be vilified for expressing his opinions, either. And, it's fair to note that compared to mathoverflow, and other available Internet communication platforms, that quixotic jousting to the infinite is overrepresented among suitable topics on mathematics and the development of mathematics. It is a fallacy to read too much into his words beyond leaving them as indeterminate and the common fallacy of overgeneralization, as it would be to hew to it.
Then while that's so and Greene is respectable, mathematical progress is by definition different than what there was before, where mathematics is true: more. And: a stalwart, stoic, static, stoney, silence on that: yes, there is more to foundations than the modern, is only that.
Regards,
Ross Finlayson

