```Date: Dec 12, 2012 11:00 AM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: fom - 01 - preface

On 12/12/2012 12:54 AM, WM wrote:> On 12 Dez., 03:21, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:>> On 12/11/2012 12:55 AM, WM wrote:>>>>> On 10 Dez., 21:03, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:>>>> On 12/10/2012 11:57 AM, WM wrote:>>>> <snip>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. He did. But, Cantor's notion of a real>>>> number was clearly found in the completion of a>>>> Cauchy space.>>>>> That is completely irrelevant for the result.>>>>>>    He found that more appealing>>>> than Dedekind cuts.  This is evident since>>>> his topological result of nested non-empty>>>> closed sets in a complete space is closely>>>> related.>>>>>> There are ordinal numbers in set theory given>>>> the names of natural numbers.>>>>> Only those which are finite.>>>>>> Find a different criticism of Alan's remarks>>>> if you must.  This one is incorrect.>>>>> So you disagree that 2 is a real number?>>>> Since you like quoting the Grundlagen, try>> transcribing long detailed passages from>> section 9>> I have written read an written everything Cantor wrote.>>> where Cantor rejects definitions>> that conflate logical priority as you have>> been doing.>> I have not been doing so. At that time there was no difference between> reals, integers and cardinals (because Cantor did not suspect that> there would apperar a contradiction). He just had switched from oo to> omega. No alpphs in sight.>>>> That is where he calls his construction>>>> "... a fundamental sequence and correlate>> it with a number b, TO BE DEFINED THROUGH>> IT,...">>>> And those numbers are multiplied by real numbers.wrongthe fundamental sequences ARE the real numbers>> [text unrelated to the topic deleted]>>Quite wrong.That was the text that explained how the well-orderedset that is referenced in 2*omega isnot described as a fundamental sequence.Cite the sections from whichyou are quoting.  And quote significantlylengthy passages so that the text isin context.
```