Date: Mar 20, 2013 9:02 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 3/20/2013 4:07 PM, WM wrote:

> On 20 Mrz., 22:01, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:

>

>> Indeed, you have not even given an explanation

>> of *all* that is agreed upon.

>

> If you don't know the set theoretic meaning of "all natural numbers",

> then you should try to learn it. If you don't know the meaning of

> Cantor's "wohlunterscheidbar" (well-distinguishable) that has to be

> true for all elements of every set, then you should try to learn it.

>

You should learn what is required when you

make claims in academic discourse.

Cantor's theory is based on a presumption

of units that had been rejected in Frege's

writings on arithmetic and is not represented

in the mathematics of modern set theory.

What is meant by this is that Cantor rejected

the thought that Russell's paradox applied to

his meaning of set precisely because of how

he thought of "finished classes" and how this

thought differed from the Frege's"extension

of a concept".

Your remarks suggest that you know how to

reconcile the Cantorian notion with the

mathematics that has arisen in the sense of

the Frege-Russell paradigm.

Please explain to us how the two different

views are reconciled.

========

Discussion of these matters may be found

in Hallett's "Cantorian Set Theory and The

Limitation of Size"