In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 24 Dez., 01:50, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Dec 23, 1:12 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article > > > <ee1d96e2-fbb9-4c48-a02e-cef0a3204...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, > > > William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 22, 7:04 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > In article > > > > > <2263ace1-dfa7-466d-8341-c50692402...@v7g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Note, that > > > > > > subcountable > > > > > > does not mean countable. > > > > > > > I am not at all sure of what you mean by subcountable. > > > > > > A set X is subcountable if we can associate a different natural number > > > > with every element x of X, call it f(x) In classical mathematics > > > > subcountable > > > > implies countable because f(X) must be a subset of the natural > > > > numbers. > > > > However, if we take a contructivist viewpoint, then we do not know > > > > that f(X) is a subset (it may not be contructable). So in > > > > constructive > > > > mathematics the fact that X is subcountable, does not mean we can > > > > find a bijection between X and some subset of the naturals, so X might > > > > not be countable. E.g. in constructive mathematics the (constructive) > > > > reals > > > > are subcountable but not countable. > > > > > > So the fact that a set is uncountable need not mean it is "bigger" > > > > than > > > > the natural numbers. > > > > > But the constraints of your "constructive mathematics' are not required > > > in classical mathematics when not doing your constructive mathematics, > > > so are not relevant in classical mathematics. > > > > Indeed. However the original post in this thread was concerned > > with the affect of definability on Cantor's argument. > > I note that Cantor's theorem is perfectly valid with the > > assumption that no unconstructable object exists, > > there is no (contructable) list of all (contructable) reals, > > so the reals remain uncountable. > > > There is no list asked for.
The claim of countability for any set requires a surjection from N to that set claimed to validate the claim of countability, and such a surjectiin IS a list
> What should that strawman be good for?
Your strawmen are , as usual, good for nothing.
> There is only the question whether the cardinality of the reals can be > larger than that of the natural numbers. The answer is no.
The only legitimate proof of such a claim would be presentation of a surjection from N to R, as cardinalities are defined in terms of such surjections.
Card(A) >= Card (B) if and only if A surjects to B
But WM seems not to understand that rejecting such definition is both WMytheological and illogical. > > And in constructivism, there is nothing uncountable because everything > that can be constructed belongs to a countable set. > > > My remarks are aimed > > at the obvious question, "If every constructable number is given by > > a string, is there not an injection from the constructable numbers > > to the naturals, and hence are the constructable numbers > > not countable?" The problem is the collection of all naturals > > which represent constructable numbers is not a constructable > > subset of the naturals. > > And nobody asks this silly question - except some matheologians who > want to cheat the constructivists.
"Constructionists" like WM cheat themselves quite effectively enough, and need no external aid to mess things up for them even more.
But outside of Wolkenmuekenheim his own type is "constrictionist"! --