Date: Nov 16, 2012 5:40 AM Author: Zaljohar@gmail.com Subject: Re: Cantor's argument and the Potential Infinite. On Nov 16, 12:31 pm, Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote:

> In article <k850hm$a0...@dont-email.me>,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:

> > "Uirgil" <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote in message

> >news:uirgil-981B6A.02055216112012@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM...

> > > In article <k84tuf$t0...@dont-email.me>,

> > > "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:

> > >> "Zuhair" <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > >>news:5e28971d-adb1-49ae-878f-db9ebaf2621c@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

>

> > >> > We still can characterize Cardinality in this setting.

>

> > >> And you keep missing the point, as the various objections of course

> > >> involve

> > >> that the standard definition of cardinality for infinite sets is wrong!

>

> > > But as far as any valid arguments are concerned, it appears AT LEAST

> > > equally likely that the various objections are the things that are

> > > wrong.

>

> > If an argument is wrong, you should show that it is so or just pass, the

> > rest is at best OT.

>

> You are the one claiming that Cantor is wrong, but he has a proof and

> you do not have a convincing counter-proof but your attempts to

> disprove Cantor have so far all fallen flat.

>

>

LV tried to disprove Cantor? that's funny really, can he even state

coherently what such a trial require so that he even make a reasonable

attempt to try. The man is just ignorant that highly shouts at others

to convince himself of being not.

Empty vessels make the most noise.

Zuhair

>

> > >> > So Cantor's diagonal is applicable to potential infinity context!

>

> > >> Cantor's arguments are *only* applied to potentially infinite sets, in

> > >> fact

> > >> in standard set theory there is no such thing as actual infinity at all.

>

> > > ZFC offers a standard set theory in which actually infinite sets are not

> > > only allowed but actually required to exist, and no one yet has been

> > > able to show that ZFC is not a perfectly sound set theory.

>

> > That is only because you are so incoherent as to insist to call N an actual

> > infinity.

>

> In ZFC, the N is an actually infinite set. So until you can show that

> ZFC is internally inconsistent, which no one has yet done, we have

> actual infinities in ZFC.

>

>

>

> > >> Please get your head out of your ass and read and try to understand what

> > >> you

> > >> are rebutting before you actually get to do it.

>

> > > AS far as head-in-ass-itis, LV appears you have a far worse case of it

> > > than those you are criticizing.

>

> > Sure, keep spamming and all that.

>

> I notice in your own spamming a lack of any arguments relevant to the

> Cantor issue.