|
|
Re: Cantor's argument and the Potential Infinite.
Posted:
Nov 16, 2012 5:40 AM
|
|
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.
|
|
