In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Why? I show that the assumption of infinite lists, i.e., of bijections with > |N, lead to contradictions with the rule that subsets cannot have larger > cardinality than sets.
The rule that WM is carefully ignoring is that the set of all subsets of a given set (its power set) must always have a LARGER cardinality that the original set
Power sets always have larger cardinalities than their base sets.
And it is the axiomatic requirements in ZF and most other set theories that (1) there be actually infinite sets and (2) that every set have a power set that screws up all of WM's arguments, since the power set of every actually infinite set is provably uncountable. --