CANTOR DISPROOF <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
in [Logic]
|
From: herbzet on 21 Jun 2010 23:28 Sylvia Else wrote: > If it's a conventional misunderstanding, he might yet be > persuaded that he is mistaken. Not gonna happen. That's not the game trolls play. The game is to see how long you'll keep trying to pick up the dollar bill that he keeps jerking away with a string. It's hilarious when you can get a real dummy to play. > ... the closer you > get to attacking his core belief, the more abusive he becomes. Hey, if you enjoy that sort of thing, knock yourself out. -- hz
From: Transfer Principle on 22 Jun 2010 00:55 On Jun 21, 8:28 pm, herbzet <herb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Sylvia Else wrote: > > If it's a conventional misunderstanding, he might yet be > > persuaded that he is mistaken. > Not gonna happen. That's not the game trolls play. Here we go again with that word "troll" -- one of the most commonly used five-letter insults used against posters who oppose ZFC. Once again, I strongly disagree that a poster deserves to be called a "troll," or any other five-letter insult, just because he doesn't consider ZFC, or any theory which proves the existence of uncountable sets, to be useful. If one feels that uncountability is a useful concept, then one is free to use a theory such as ZFC in which the existence of uncountable sets is provable. That same freedom should be granted to those like Herc who believe that uncountability is a useless concept. He should be allowed to oppose Cantor's Theorem without five-letter insults.
From: Sylvia Else on 22 Jun 2010 01:05 On 22/06/2010 2:55 PM, Transfer Principle wrote: > On Jun 21, 8:28 pm, herbzet<herb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Sylvia Else wrote: >>> If it's a conventional misunderstanding, he might yet be >>> persuaded that he is mistaken. >> Not gonna happen. That's not the game trolls play. > > Here we go again with that word "troll" -- one of the most > commonly used five-letter insults used against posters who > oppose ZFC. > > Once again, I strongly disagree that a poster deserves to > be called a "troll," or any other five-letter insult, just > because he doesn't consider ZFC, or any theory which > proves the existence of uncountable sets, to be useful. > > If one feels that uncountability is a useful concept, then > one is free to use a theory such as ZFC in which the > existence of uncountable sets is provable. That same freedom > should be granted to those like Herc who believe that > uncountability is a useless concept. He should be allowed to > oppose Cantor's Theorem without five-letter insults. It would help if he preserved a civil debate himself. He's not arguing that uncountability is a useless concept, he's arguing that Cantor's theorem is wrong, which is a different matter (though still not a justification for abuse). Sylvia.
From: Tim Little on 22 Jun 2010 01:05 On 2010-06-22, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > I've never heard of anyone having a delusion about mathematics > before. You must be from one of the other groups in this cross-posted thread. Here in sci.math there are very few days in which such a person does not post. - Tim
From: Transfer Principle on 22 Jun 2010 01:10
On Jun 20, 7:09 pm, "porky_pig...(a)my-deja.com" <porky_pig...(a)my- deja.com> wrote: > On Jun 20, 9:59 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > So 3.14.. is countable infinity wide, and has infinitely many digits of PI in order. > > 3 > > 31 > > 314 > > .. > > is countable infinity wide and has "as many as we wish" digits of PI in order. > > BOY who said Porky Pig isn't still worth a laugh! > I guess this is you everyone at sci.math laughs at (with exception of > WM, of course). And you keep wondering why no one understands your > point. In fact this is you who don't understand anything what people > are trying to tell you. It's possible for many people, including Herc and WM, to fully understand ZFC, yet not accept it as a useful theory. Yet Porky Pig jumps to the conclusion made by so many others, namely that anyone who doesn't accept ZFC doesn't understand it. > Apparently you have no math background It's possible to have an extensive math background and yet not accept ZFC as a useful theory. > you don't understand the concepts of limits Not everyone accepts classical analysis. There are other types of analysis besides classical analysis, you know. > infinity There are many mathematicians, including finitists and ultrafinitists, who don't accept the infinity of ZFC. > have no clue what Cantor's proof is all about. It is possible to know precisely what Cantor's proof is all about and nonetheless reject a theory in which Cantor's Theorem is provable. There are theories, including NFU, in which Cantor's Theorem fails. > you're not even qualified to be in this group at all. One shouldn't have to accept ZFC as useful in order to be qualified to post here. As Herc himself points out, this group isn't called "sci.math.zfc"! |