Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
fom
Posts:
1,035
Registered:
12/4/12
|
|
Re: Cantor's absurdity, once again, why not?
Posted:
Mar 19, 2013 10:55 AM
|
|
On 3/19/2013 7:28 AM, WM wrote:
> On 17 Mrz., 07:11, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> The point of this question is
>> that you claim such rules but
>> ignore the work of others who
>> have steadfastly worked at clarifying
>> the nature of such rules as a
>> matter of scientific principle
>> (in the wider epistemological
>> sense).
>
> I do not ignore these rules, but in some instances I can show that
> they are contradictory.
You are unable to *show* anything by means of proof.
You use no form of commonly accepted logic.
You offer no alternative form of logic to be considered
by others and agreed upon.
The extent that your statements have any coherence arises
from the fact that the natural numbers satisfy a general
mathematical structure called a directed set and that
a mathematician named Euclid *proved* that there is no
greatest prime number.
What you actually *show* is that if someone gives
you a box of crayons, you know how to make marks.
|
|
|
|
