Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Cantor's argument and the Potential Infinite.
Replies: 17   Last Post: Nov 17, 2012 10:59 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Zaljohar@gmail.com

Posts: 2,665
Registered: 6/29/07
Re: Cantor's argument and the Potential Infinite.
Posted: Nov 16, 2012 5:40 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Nov 16, 12:31 pm, Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote:
> In article <k850hm$a0...@dont-email.me>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:

> > "Uirgil" <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote in message
> >news:uirgil-981B6A.02055216112012@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM...

> > > In article <k84tuf$t0...@dont-email.me>,
> > > "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:

> > >> "Zuhair" <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:5e28971d-adb1-49ae-878f-db9ebaf2621c@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

>
> > >> > We still can characterize Cardinality in this setting.
>
> > >> And you keep missing the point, as the various objections of course
> > >> involve
> > >> that the standard definition of cardinality for infinite sets is wrong!

>
> > > But as far as any valid arguments are concerned, it appears AT LEAST
> > > equally likely that the various objections are the things that are
> > > wrong.

>
> > If an argument is wrong, you should show that it is so or just pass, the
> > rest is at best OT.

>
> You are the one claiming that Cantor is wrong, but he has a proof and
> you do not have a convincing  counter-proof but your attempts to
> disprove Cantor have so far all fallen flat.
>
>


LV tried to disprove Cantor? that's funny really, can he even state
coherently what such a trial require so that he even make a reasonable
attempt to try. The man is just ignorant that highly shouts at others
to convince himself of being not.

Empty vessels make the most noise.

Zuhair


>
> > >> > So Cantor's diagonal is applicable to potential infinity context!
>
> > >> Cantor's arguments are *only* applied to potentially infinite sets, in
> > >> fact
> > >> in standard set theory there is no such thing as actual infinity at all.

>
> > > ZFC offers a standard set theory in which actually infinite sets are not
> > > only allowed but actually required to exist, and no one yet has been
> > > able to show that ZFC is not a perfectly sound set theory.

>
> > That is only because you are so incoherent as to insist to call N an actual
> > infinity.

>
> In ZFC,  the N is an actually infinite set. So until you can show that
> ZFC is internally inconsistent, which no one has yet done, we have
> actual infinities in ZFC.
>
>
>

> > >> Please get your head out of your ass and read and try to understand what
> > >> you
> > >> are rebutting before you actually get to do it.

>
> > > AS far as head-in-ass-itis, LV appears you have a far worse case of it
> > > than those you are criticizing.

>
> > Sure, keep spamming and all that.
>
> I notice in your own spamming a lack of any arguments relevant to the
> Cantor issue.






Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.