Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simply defining =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6del?= Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined)
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 11:23:06 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <87imdu71th.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <fKqdnV-43axKybXCnZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87r1slgaum.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <JOadnVA8yoVNqbfCnZ2dnUU7-RPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h7thfh2t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xsOdnY50F-kKa7fCnZ2dnUU7-bXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <873650esv8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <yaqdnWuwh8Hfv7bCnZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87eeok1zgp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <gqmdnb02bbrxxbbCnZ2dnUU7-SfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87d044mshx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <oc6dne9Yguge5LbCnZ2dnUU7-YvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <873650m4mq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Jv2dnSsVxIeTu7HCnZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87tuxflhoq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <Mo-dnW1dM5n7_rHCnZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87imdvl9ew.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <YLCdnbwdA_7pDLHCnZ2dnUU7-VnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <878serkzzu.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <zomdnbunK4zxL7HCnZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87wo2bjjms.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <FoKdnWo4fqwm67DCnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="14ca510127baf9abda7312821a677a46"; logging-data="21721"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+mXE9r6YMKE3v3ELJHRCgy"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qFTQCfVdHiU9MBoGZrUutCDGau4= sha1:HvoNmhYHJB1KZDACvnSv7uhvO8s=
Xref: csiph.com comp.theory:22169

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
[...]
> The bijection between the natural numbers and the elements of a finite
> set breaks when one reaches the size-of-set element of the set.

Yes, though it's simpler to say (correctly) that there is no such
bijection.

> To say that there is a complete bijection between the natural numbers
> and the elements of a finite set is psychotic.

Please calm down.  Such a claim would not be "psychotic" (I presume
you're not qualified to make such a psychiatric diagnosis).  It would
simply be factually incorrect.

But I don't believe that anyone has made such a claim.  Please cite
the exact wording (from Mendelson, if I've followed the context
correctly) that you've interpreted that way.  I expect (with less
than 100% certainty) that someone here will be able to explain how
you've misunderstood it.

[...]

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */