|
|
Re: The finite infinite and the infinite infinite
Posted:
Aug 28, 2012 5:26 PM
|
|
WM wrote:
> 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.
|
|
