Date: Jan 23, 2013 11:54 AM
Author: ross.finlayson@gmail.com
Subject: Re: ZFC and God
On Jan 23, 3:58 am, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:

> "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> 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 (aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi)

>

> "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.

Regards,

Ross Finlayson