Date: Jan 23, 2013 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: ZFC and God

On Jan 23, 3:58 am, Aatu Koskensilta <> wrote:
> "Jesse F. Hughes" <> writes:

> > We're talking about whether you can prove that
> >  U_n=1^oo {1,...,n}
> > is finite.
>   Here I think it's good idea to spell out this (just) a bit more
> explicitly: what WM seems to be asserting is that there is a finite set
> N -- i.e. a set N such that |N| = k for some natural k -- such that for
> every natural n, {1, ..., n} is a subset of N. The assertion is rank
> nonsense, whatever one thinks of infinite sets or the diagonal argument.
> --
> Aatu Koskensilta (
> "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar ber muss man schweigen"
>   - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Koskensilta, with your excellent vocabulary, for you to denote "rank
nonsense" twice, attributes it technical meaning, or at least a
scaffold for its development.

And I'll agree: N is not finite.

Can we further discuss Friedman's post, thank you? What is the
mathematics about the absolute and ultra-infinite? ZF is not it (as
it's most certainly incomplete where not inconsistent). And, keeping
ZF consistent has its theorems apply to its objects.


Ross Finlayson