CANTOR DISPROOF <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< [Math]

Prev: Anders, Ebihara Re: additive versus multiplicative creation: Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #180; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: combinations of additive and multiplicative creation: Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #181; ATOM TOTALITY

From: herbzet on 21 Jun 2010 21:41

Sylvia Else wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
>
> > Herc is a troll who is HAVING A BALL jerking all the "smart guys" around.
>
> Or not. Herc is a paranoid schizophrenic, and subject to a variety of
> delusions.

None of which implies that he is not also a troll.

> What isn't clear is whether this Cantor stuff is a
> conventional misunderstanding, or yet another delusion.

It's the same old tired Cantor troll b.s.

Sheesh -- open your eyes.

--
hz

From: Sylvia Else on 21 Jun 2010 21:56

On 22/06/2010 11:41 AM, herbzet wrote:
>
>
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> herbzet wrote:
>>
>>> Herc is a troll who is HAVING A BALL jerking all the "smart guys" around.
>>
>> Or not. Herc is a paranoid schizophrenic, and subject to a variety of
>> delusions.
>
> None of which implies that he is not also a troll.
>
>> What isn't clear is whether this Cantor stuff is a
>> conventional misunderstanding, or yet another delusion.
>
> It's the same old tired Cantor troll b.s.

I didn't realise before how long this has been going on for.

But I don't think he's a troll - he appears to have a genuine belief
that the world's mathematicians have got this wrong. If it's a
conventional misunderstanding, he might yet be persuaded that he is
mistaken. But if, as I increasingly suspect, it's a delusion, then it
will be immune to any kind of disproof. His behaviour here is consistent
with his behaviour when discussing his other delusions - the closer you
get to attacking his core belief, the more abusive he becomes.

I've never heard of anyone having a delusion about mathematics before.

Sylvia.

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.