Virgil
Posts:
5,611
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Matheology § 285
Posted:
Jun 13, 2013 8:08 PM
|
|
In article <a69439f6-2dd9-4b38-a232-8b5ec5edbafb@googlegroups.com>,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 June 2013 23:53:21 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:48:08 PM UTC-7, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de
> > wrote:
> >
>
> > > My proof does not concern "the set of all natural numbers" whatever you
> > > may understand by and expect from that phrase. My proof concerns "all
> > > natural numbers" and "all rational numbers" without any exception.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > If your "sets" are different or more, then I am not interested in such
> > > matheological notions of magic power.
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You are the one putting in "more" assumptions and restriction.
>
> No. I consider only all rationals which should be possible if they all "are
> there", ... well somewhere.
In WM's world of Wolkenmuekenheim, all sets are finite, so all ordered
sets are already well-ordered including his finite set of rationals, and
his arguments apply only to finite ordered sets which are already known
to be well-ordered.
Once actually infinite sets are allowed, his argument fails because it
never deals with any actually infinite sets or any actually infinite
processes.
--
|
|
