> On 28 Aug., 00:07, MoeBlee <modem...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > For "the" hierarchy of sets, i.e. in order to have a cardinality for >> > every set and to have all cardinalities in trichotomy, it is required, >> > that every set has a least ordinal, >> >> Wrong. And you can't even state any of this correctly. >> >> And I've corrected you on this point over and over and over, but you >> continue to ignore. > > You would even accuse the devil of being incompetent in matters of > hell or Cantor of being incompetent in matters of set theory. >> >> 1. If we define 'card(x)' as 'the least ordinal equinumerous with x', >> then, yes, of course in order for 'card' to be properly defined for >> all sets, it must be the case that every set is equinumerous with some >> ordinal. (But "has an ordinal", as you incompently write, but rather >> "is equinumerous with an ordinal".) > > Didn't I foretell it??? > > If you were not to uncultured to understand German texts, then you > could probably understand what a perfect idiot of incompetence you > are.
You are so unbelievably dull that you can not even understand trivial facts that you have been told now for 8 years: Cantor's ways of expressing these things are to a large part obsolete, especially so in the snippets from Cantor's letters which I have deleted.