> On 26/12/2012 5:03 PM, fom wrote: > >> On 12/26/2012 2:34 PM, Virgil wrote: > >>> Or does WM claim a definition of countability other than the standard >>> one? >>> >> >> He does. He stated it. >> >> A set is countable iff it is a subset of a countable set.
> This definition is, of course, circular, and should convince anyone who > reads it that the writer of this "definition" does not understand the > first points of mathematics. > >> Infinite sets are, therefore, if they exist, uncountable. > > And this is a non-sequitur. > >> Claims of non-existence, of course, are just as metaphysical >> as claims of existence. WM is an empiricist. > > WM is a fool. An arrogant, blustering, uneducable fool.
The idiot WM thinks that every set must be constructed and while this idiot "believes" one can construct an countable but infinite set he does not believe one can construct an uncountable infinite set from a countable infinite set ;)