Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Matheology § 210
Replies: 80   Last Post: Feb 8, 2013 5:45 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
fom

Posts: 1,969
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 210
Posted: Feb 7, 2013 6:51 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 2/7/2013 10:42 AM, WM wrote:
> On 7 Feb., 15:49, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>> On 2/7/2013 7:54 AM, WM wrote:
>>

>>> Once upon a time there used to be a logocal identity: The expression
>>> "Set X is countable" used to be equivalent to "Set X can be listed".

>>
>> Incorrect.

>
> First learn, then understand, then judge.
>
>


I did. I took the time to tolerate your nonsense.
During that time I learned how your behavior is motivated
by an agenda rather than any honest and sincere
respect for mathematical investigations. Understanding
that (with a little help from others) I judged it
was time to keep your nonsense honest.

> Otherwise you appear silly.

How one appears to a WMoron is irrelevant.

>
> 1.1 Definition The cardinality of A is less than or equal to the
> cardinality of B (notation: |A| ? |B|) if there is a one-to-one
> mapping of A into B.


Coming from you, a true definition of any kind is a breath of
fresh air -- except that this definition has nothing to do
with the logical priority of well-order over cardinality, or,
for that matter, your inappropriate use of the word "list" and
its derivatives in a context where it has no commonly understood
use.

But, since you so conveniently chose Jech, note that his
definition of the class of alephs relies on the notion
of a least ordinal for any given class of sets that
cannot be distinguished on the basis of your definition.

The problem with what you tried to do, going back to
basics, can be found in Aristotle. One can never prove
a definition. But one can destroy a definition. This
is the epistemic nature of whichever equivalence underlies
any definition. Although Cantor, himself, never quite
recognized the logical priority of well-ordering in full,
his definition of "cardinal number" is not the definition
of "cardinality" you gave. That general definition is
meaningless beyond a classificatory role without a
canonical representative to which a determinate sense of
"number" is attached. This is implicit in Cantor's
observation that the objects of a set are abstracted
to "units" as part of the abstraction from a set to
its "cardinal number". Jech's version of set theory
does not abstract to "units". It fixes specific ordinal
numbers as the alephs.












Date Subject Author
2/5/13
Read Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
William Hughes
2/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
William Hughes
2/5/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/5/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/5/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/6/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/6/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/6/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/6/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/6/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
William Hughes
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
William Hughes
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
William Hughes
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
William Hughes
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
William Hughes
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
William Hughes
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
William Hughes
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
William Hughes
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
William Hughes
2/8/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/8/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/8/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/8/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/8/13
Read Re: Re: Matheology § 210
Michael Stemper
2/8/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/8/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/8/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/8/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/8/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/8/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/8/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/7/13
Read Re: WMytheology � 210
Virgil
2/7/13
Read Re: WMytheology § 210
fom
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/8/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
Ralf Bader
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/8/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
fom
2/6/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/5/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/6/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/6/13
Read Re: Matheology � 210
Virgil
2/7/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/7/13
Read Re: WM's WMytheology
Virgil
2/8/13
Read Re: Matheology § 210
Scott Berg

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.