
Re: § 433 The reason for calling matheology matheol ogy
Posted:
Feb 21, 2014 7:59 AM


On Friday, February 21, 2014 2:10:59 PM UTC+2, muec...@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote: > On Thursday, 20 February 2014 21:46:29 UTC+1, John Gabriel wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:51:26 PM UTC+2, muec...@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote: > > > > > > > I know. But where does it say "Cantor's diagonal argument works exclusively in the domain of terminating sequences which he himself as proven to be countable." ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay. I get it. *You* are saying that. Cantor *does not* say that, but that's *exactly* what Cantor does deceptively. :) > > > > Yes, set theory is a big fraud. > > > > If you have a list like this: > > > > 1 > > 11 > > 111 > > ... > > > > then no entry has infinitely many digits. However, the entries are potentially infinite because there is no upper threshold for the number of digits. That makes the diagonal 111... also poetntially infinite: Its number of digits surpasses every natural number. But it does never become larger than all natural numbers, because the diagonal is restricted to the entries which all are finite. Obviously the diagonal cannot become larger than all entries. > > > > This is confused by set theorists: The diagonal has more digits than *every* entry but they claim that it has more digits than *all* entries. That's the intended fraud. That's why they strictly refuse to distinguish between potential and actual infinity. It is a simple quantifier exchange: > > > > For every subset {1, 2, 3, ..., n} of N with cardinaliyt n there is a larger subset with larger cardinality. But by sleight of hand they claim: There is a cardinal number, aleph_0, that is larger than all others. And the newcomers are not able to distinguish these different infinities, are not able to recognize the fraud, and after a while they will refuse to recognize it because they have invested so much time and power in this nonsense that is completely useless for all scientific purposes. > > > > Regards, WM
I have always been aware of these facts. What I was not clear on, was whether or not, you were misquoting Cantor's argument. It turns out that you were stating the facts from your *point of view*, which is fine by me. :)
I agree that set theory is a "big fraud" as you say. Finite set theory can be useful, but anything else is a story.
Cantor was a fraud and the father of all mathematical cranks.

