Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Posted:
Jan 9, 2013 12:33 PM
|
|
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> On 9 Jan., 17:01, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> > It would be countable if "countable" was a sensible notion. Everybody
>> > who believes that "countable" is a sensible notion and that the power
>> > set axiom is valid must think that every subset of a countable set
>> > exists and is countable.
>>
>> Wrong: Brouwer did not think so, for one.
>
> Brouwer did not think so because he denied uncountability.
That is simply irrelevant to your false claim.
> I said "everybody who believes that the power set axiom is valid".
> That is tantamount with uncountably many subsets of |N.
Not according to Brouwer.
>> More importantly, for WMathematics, you make assertions about a
>> non-existent set: there is no such set of finitely defined reals.
>
> There is the set of all finite definitions (and the set of all
> languages). A finitely defined real is defined by one or more finite
> definitions. And I assume that a subset has not larger cardinality
> than its super set.
You are already talking about a non-existent set.
> You may deny that.
*You* deny that there is such a set as the set of all finitely defined
reals.
> In standard set theory it is
> accepted.
So what? We're talking about WMathematics here, which grows
murkier by the day.
> Regards, WM
--
Alan Smaill
|
|
|
|
