
Re: some amateurish opinions on CH
Posted:
Apr 8, 2013 1:38 PM


On 8 Apr., 19:13, Dan <dan.ms.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I use it as it is in order to contradict it. > > Should you contradict something, you can't use the contradicted thing > as an argument to support something else .
The contradiction has the same character as the famous proof that sqrt(2) is not rational. It is assumed to be rational
Here I assume that actual infinity exists. The result is uncountability, i.e., the existence of a set that has uncountably many different elements (elements that can be distinguiushed by infinite sequences of digits or bits). But the Binary Tree shows that it is impossible to distinguish uncountable many reals. > > Every time you draw a line , you make "finished infinity" .
That is not the case, since there is no finished infinity. But it is in vain to discuss this by means of analogies and generalities. Try to distinguish more than countably many infinite paths in the Binary Tree. You will fail. > > The same goes for you and Set Theory .Can you imagine a world where > there never was any 'Set Theory' for you to rant about?How would you > get attention?
I have done a lot of different things before. But I must confess that set theory is the most interesting one, in particular the psychological aspect that so many intelligent and bright people could fall victims to it.
Regards, WM

