
Re: Matheology § 214
Posted:
Feb 11, 2013 3:39 AM


On 10 Feb., 23:59, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 2/10/2013 3:55 PM, Virgil wrote: > > > > > >>> Please explain "existing set". > > >> An existing set is a set that is finite or potentially infinite. > > > That would require all of them to already exist, implying that no new > > ones could ever be created, or invented, or discovered. > > > Thus in WMYTHEOLOGY there can never be anything new. > > What would be the consequence of that invariance? > > Every potentially infinite set already exists.
Who said so? I said if existing, then finite or pot infinite. Now you return if pot infinite then existing. Logic? Try to understand: A ==> B does not imply B ==> A. Then you may go on to learn logic step by step, but not before understanding this (small step for mankind, but obviously big step for you). > > Thus, potential infinity is immanent infinity.
No. > > This is Cantor's argument.
Yes he made the same step. And his followers gladly accepted it. He exchanged quantifyers on his "extended integers": "For every integer n, there exists integer m: m >= n" to "There exists integer m, such that for every integer n: m >= n."
No reason to be proud about "understanding" that.
Regards, WM

