Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
fom
Posts:
1,098
Registered:
12/4/12
|
|
Re: Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Posted:
Mar 14, 2013 4:58 PM
|
|
On 3/14/2013 2:30 PM, WM wrote:
>
> It is so simple:
>
> Here it is again.
It is not possible to advance to a logic
of parts of individuals as individuals
without the (correct, geometric) version
of Leibniz' principle of the identity
of indiscernibles interpreted with Cantor's
intersection theorem pertaining to
nested sequences of closed sets
having vanishing diameter.
It is not possible to "quantize" the
tails of those infinite sequences with
a general distinction between "closed"
and "open" sets in a topology without
being informed through the situation
described above.
Naming by virtue of definite description
is an inherently infinitary process
because of the epistemic nature of
definition. So, any use of a singular
term in any language act subject to
the Fregean or Russellian analyses
presupposes a completed infinity.
And, that includes references to
infinity via potential infinity.
|
|
|
|
