
§ 433 The reason for calling matheology matheology
Posted:
Feb 20, 2014 6:39 AM


Zeitgeist on the odds of my students to understand transfinite set theory:" if they can be convinced that what their senses tell them may be Not be the whole picture, then they may have a chance."
Virgil, appearing as Wisely NonTheist: "There are 'more' real numbers than there are finite definitions to define them with, so most reals can only be defined collectively, not individually."
Ben Bacarrisse emphasized: "They are not 'entire undefinable'. The set of them can be defined." And he added: "You can know things about the set. For example, that it can't be bijected with N."
William P. Hughes: "A subcollection of a listable collection may not be listable."
Alan Smaill: "After all, since matheology accepts undefinable real numbers, then why are you trying to suggest that it does not accept undefinable enumerations?"
That is true. I never got a grasp of this idea: Why should undefinable definable enumerations (aka lists) be exemptet from the list of unlisted exemptions?
Regards, WM

