Date: Jan 23, 2013 12:22 PM
Author: Jesse F. Hughes
Subject: Re: ZFC and God

David Bernier <> writes:

> On 01/23/2013 11:40 AM, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>> WM<> writes:

>>> On 23 Jan., 14:39, "Jesse F. Hughes"<> wrote:

>>>> If he wants to do math without the axiom of infinity, let him!
>>> No, I show that it is not possible to do math with that axiom in a
>>> consistent way.

>>>> But
>>>> his bloviating about inconsistency in ZF should occasionally be
>>>> challenged, since it is so easy to show that he's full of bluster,
>>>> jumping from topic to topic because he honestly knows that none of his
>>>> arguments survive any real examination.

>>> Try to find the difference between the Binary Trees. That should open
>>> your eyes.

>> Why not finish our discussion of N first? Why must you change the
>> subject?

> As an aside on debates and such, it's sometimes said that
> controlling the "terms of reference" is important, as in:
> "What is the issue? What is the query? What is the question
> to be debated?"
> This raises the question: What is relevant? (to the question of
> the debate).
> Naturally, I'll grant that here, "Binary Trees" is irrelevant !
> to the question of ZF consistency ...

I've seen WM flit from topic to topic before. I don't see the point
of leaving our original topic unfinished.

"Just be aware that anti-Cantorians are sick of being called crackpots,
and the day will soon come when the crankiest Cantorians will eat
their words, and this rot will be extricated from mathematics."
-- Tony Orlow, an "anti-Cantorian" ready to rumble