In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 11. Dezember 2013 14:07:50 UTC+1 schrieb wpih...@gmail.com: > > On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 4:23:18 AM UTC-4, WM wrote:
> > > Of course the set of all finite words is listable. This list is > > > constructable. The set of all constructable numbers is a sub list.
> > However, this sub list is not constructable.
> You mean you cannot eliminate the nonsense entries? No problen, every > meaningful entry is enumerated by a natural numbers.
So are all the others.
> > (Thus to a constructivist > > the collection of constructable numbers is not listable. You fail to > > realize > > that to a constructivist, the fact that a collection G has the property > > that every member of G is an element of K does not make G a subset of K.) > > You fail to realisze that I am not interested in constructivists nonsense.
WM is essentially a contructionist himself, though not anywhere nearly as good at producing constructions as the good ones. > > > > > Your frequent reference to a non-constructable list should give you pause. > > I need only the reference to a list of all finite words and the fact that a > subset has never larger cardinal number than the superset.
But in WMytheology ther is no such thing as cardinality , since that would require that the set of reals have a larger cardinality than the set of rationals.
> That's enough to show that set theory is self-contradictory.
NOT outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology! --