SCI.MATH POLL - uncountable infinity
in [Math]
|
Prev: on a bounded interval, absolutely continuous => bounded variation
Next: Scissors Experiment to prove whether lightwaves can be Doppler shifted Chapt 8 #126; ATOM TOTALITY
From: |-|ercules on 6 Jun 2010 23:47 "herbzet" <herbzet(a)gmail.com> wrote >> You refuse to acknowledge the powerset proof of higher infinity is silly >> (at least looks silly) because there's other proofs of higher infinity! > > Sorry, that's not what you asked. I'm not a mind reader, you know. > >> Even if I meticulously worded my argument You really are a literal nut. Reword: You refuse to acknowledge the silly rewording of the powerset proof of higher infinity. Despite it's provability in ZFC! (HA) Herc
From: herbzet on 6 Jun 2010 23:52 |-|ercules wrote: > "herbzet" wrote No, I didn't, you did. > >> You refuse to acknowledge the powerset proof of higher infinity is silly > >> (at least looks silly) because there's other proofs of higher infinity! > > > > Sorry, that's not what you asked. I'm not a mind reader, you know. > > > >> Even if I meticulously worded my argument > > You really are a literal nut. I didn't say that -- you did. Are you off you meds? -- hz
From: George Greene on 8 Jun 2010 01:25 On Jun 6, 2:31 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > Therefore, any poster who doesn't like Cantor's Theorem > ought to consider NFU instead of ZFC. Nobody ought to consider NFU period for any but the most theoretical of reasons. For example, in NFU, the set of all 1-element subsets of a set is NOT the same size as the set! You canNOT prove the existence of the function mapping x to {x} for every x in some domain-set S. What you really want to consider, far more generically than NFU, is set theory with a universal set. There are plenty of web-pages devoted.
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 8 Jun 2010 21:32 Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: > I am confident that ZF is consistent, because I believe that if ZF > were inconsistent, a proof of this would have been found by now. Why? This is not uncommon idea but on closer scrutiny there's not much to recommend it. > If it does turn out that ZF is inconsistent, then there would have > been some underlying reason that the proof wasn't discovered for over > a century after the axioms were first given. What's there to rule out the possibility that the simplest proof of a contradiction in ZF is inhumanely complex, utterly beyond our comprehension, invoking, say, an obscure instance of Pi-20^20^20^20^4546^3214532 + 4145624^7542 + 897412 replacement? -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Bill Taylor on 9 Jun 2010 02:28
On Jun 9, 1:32 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > What's there to rule out the possibility that the simplest proof of a > contradiction in ZF is inhumanely complex, utterly beyond our > comprehension, invoking, say, an obscure instance of > Pi-20^20^20^20^4546^3214532 + 4145624^7542 + 897412 replacement? Common sense? ----------------------------------------------------- Bill Taylor W.Taylor(a)math.canterbury.ac.nz ----------------------------------------------------- Q. Why did the chicken cross the Moebius strip? A: To get to... to... ----------------------------------------------------- |