In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 7 Jan., 08:21, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In fact, it's consistent with ZF that there are sets x and y such that > > both |x| > |y| and |y| = |x|. Also, there can be sets x and y such > > that |x| > |y| and |y| > |x|. > > Fine but why do you call that consistent? Oh, I see. You said > consistent with ZF, i.e., you mean of same state of logic: |x| > |y| > and |y| > |x| is as meaningful a theory as ZF. > > Agreed.
WM has no idea what he is really agreeing to, just as he rarely has any idea what he is objecting to.
Butch's statements were based on a nan-standard definition of |x| > |y| and |y| = |x| --