On 12/27/2012 5:31 AM, gus gassmann wrote: > 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.
This is just wrong, as George has pointed out.
What I was thinking but not saying is that a countable infinity is like a round square for WM