In article <kc2tp8$f8o$1@news.m-online.net>, Ralf Bader <bader@nefkom.net> wrote:
> WM wrote: > > > On 1 Jan., 19:19, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The distinguishability argument is a deep intuitive argument about the > >> question of Countability of the reals. It is an argument of mine, it > >> claims that the truth is that the reals are countable. However it > >> doesn't claim that this truth can be put in a formal proof. > > > > The distinguishability argument is neither deep nor intuitive. > > It is not even an argument, just question-begging. > > > And is > > not an argument of yours since you do not even understand its > > implications. It is simply the basis of the axiom of extensionality. > > How should we distinguish elements if they could not be distinguished? > > > > we arrive finally at: > >> > >> FINAL CONCLUSION: > >> > >> The number of all reals is COUNTABLE. > > > > Of course this would be the result if "countable" was a sensible > > notion. > > You even know what the result would be if non-sensible notions involved > were sensible. Mückenheim, you are either the Greatest Genius Of All Times > or one of the greatest idiots.
And there is sufficient evidence to eliminate the former possibility. --
