The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 214
Replies: 19   Last Post: Feb 11, 2013 4:56 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 214
Posted: Feb 11, 2013 3:53 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 2/11/2013 2:39 AM, WM wrote:
> On 10 Feb., 23:59, fom <> 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.

You said "A is B". Not "if A, then B"

> 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."

Now that I have figured out what mathematics you
are invoking, I can answer your assertions concerning
"exchange of quantifiers".

Sadly, in spite of what may even be considered
elegant, it is not worth explaining. It is you
who has the religious agenda that blinds.

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.