Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.math,comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:55:17 -0700 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: <8736gyh247.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87ftkyfi60.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87sgoydzm9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87blvlequ8.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <4bmdnZCR0LAZOuLAnZ2dnUU7-RfNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k1a7bvbq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87y2ynacbo.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <877e679hpu.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <87k1a68g03.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3ab81264302c15878e9ebe4a623694d4"; logging-data="29351"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19x0VTfRVqZE1yewEcRjzJ0" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:mUbQq1tZyq3cdPLFF84qIaE5tc4= sha1:CVSIM1jsZfUQzqULU/VKIzcTFUU= Xref: csiph.com sci.logic:211046 sci.math:458751 comp.theory:19997 comp.ai.philosophy:19313 peteolcott writes: > On 9/18/2019 10:21 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2019-09-18 8:59 a.m., peteolcott wrote: >>> On 9/18/2019 3:39 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> peteolcott writes: >>>> [...] >>>>> The conversation has moved way past this. Now my point is built >>>>> on the basis of Mike and Keith's agreement. >>>> >>>> Stop using my name to support your claims. >>>> >>> >>> HELL NO !!! >>> >>> THERE IS A POINT ON THE NUMBER LINE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO 0 >>> On 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>  > we can define "iota" as an infinitesimal, something that is not a >>>  > real number but that has a location on the number line, directly >>>  > adjacent to the real number 0.  It is greater than 0 and less than >>>  > any positive real number. >>> >> >> This paragraph that you keep quoting was followed by additional >> material which you conveniently ignore. That material made it quite >> clear that he was *not* supporting your view. >> >> André >> > > Bullshit This paragraph that you keep quoting was followed by additional material which you conveniently ignore. That material made it quite clear that I was not supporting your view. I do not expect to convince you of anything, nor am I interested in doing so, but I expect these two paragraphs will appear with multiple preceding ">" characters in multiple followups (unless you snip them) The open interval (0,1] over the real numbers has no least element (you have recently claimed that it does). An open interval (0,1] over some proper superset of the real numbers could conceivably have a least element, but I don't believe it could do so unless that set is deliberately constructed to make this claim true, which is not a useful thing to do (I'm less than 100% confident of this statement). The cardinality of the reals is greater than the cardinality of the integers. The cardinality of any superset of the reals is greater than the cardinality of the integers. All these statements are in direct disagreement with claims you have made here. Given your habit of quoting the entirety of the parent article in each followup, I expect you'll continue to cite me in support of your claims while quoting this article in which I clearly state that I disagree with you. I've asked you not to cite me in support of your claims, and I ask you again now to stop, but I do not anticipate that you will respect that simple request. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org Will write code for food. void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */