Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.logic > #210463 > unrolled thread
| Started by | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-09-11 12:05 -0500 |
| Last post | 2019-09-11 23:15 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 322 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.logic
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 12:05 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-11 18:37 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 18:32 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-12 01:15 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 19:30 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) temakoutera62@gmail.com - 2019-09-11 17:32 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-12 01:38 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-12 01:49 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) George Greene <greeneg@email.unc.edu> - 2019-09-14 18:22 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 02:32 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:19 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 03:29 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:41 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 04:19 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 22:46 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 13:02 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:26 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-17 00:21 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 18:24 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-17 02:10 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 20:41 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-17 03:34 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 22:43 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 23:12 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 09:27 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-17 14:26 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:53 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-18 03:55 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 22:19 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 21:23 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 22:31 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 22:04 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 23:21 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 22:40 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 00:27 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 23:55 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 00:59 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 00:12 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 10:15 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 09:35 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 11:00 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 10:14 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 11:26 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 10:42 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 13:10 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 12:36 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 13:49 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 12:59 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 14:12 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 20:25 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 13:30 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 14:45 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 14:14 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 15:29 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 14:38 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 15:56 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 20:38 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 22:03 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 21:33 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 16:35 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 10:35 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 16:46 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:42 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 17:58 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 12:43 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 19:34 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 19:42 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 18:16 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 18:12 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 10:24 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (NO GAPS) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 16:39 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 18:05 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-17 20:41 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-18 05:15 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 23:32 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 23:21 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-18 18:42 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 12:58 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 19:05 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-19 01:42 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 20:46 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 02:52 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-19 22:24 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 17:13 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-20 01:05 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 19:49 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-20 02:34 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 20:54 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-20 03:32 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-20 14:16 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-20 17:49 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-20 07:16 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-20 21:37 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-20 15:53 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-21 00:10 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-21 09:45 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-21 17:20 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Jim Burns <james.g.burns@att.net> - 2019-09-21 14:39 -0400
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-22 13:32 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-23 19:50 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-24 02:27 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-24 15:22 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-21 15:22 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 18:02 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 09:10 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 09:06 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:54 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 12:06 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-12 01:42 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 20:03 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-12 02:50 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 20:59 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-12 04:07 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 22:16 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-12 04:20 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 22:22 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-12 16:33 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 11:14 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-13 02:00 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 21:39 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-13 16:38 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:48 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-13 17:54 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 00:51 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-14 17:23 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 13:09 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 19:28 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 19:33 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 14:27 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 20:30 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 14:41 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-14 13:02 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-14 14:08 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 21:18 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-14 14:25 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 16:03 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:19 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 15:45 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 21:55 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 16:06 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:20 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 00:54 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Exfalso Quodlibet <exflaso.quodlibet@gmail.com> - 2019-09-14 14:07 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 21:14 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 16:01 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:17 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 00:47 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 19:24 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 02:20 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 02:43 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:33 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 04:09 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 22:40 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:40 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 12:05 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 12:33 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:17 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 09:26 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:36 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 16:50 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 16:55 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 10:06 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 11:22 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 10:38 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 11:59 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 11:10 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 13:27 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 12:34 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 14:19 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 20:28 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 13:35 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 14:51 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 21:02 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 14:15 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 16:18 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 16:00 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-16 15:29 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 18:14 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2019-09-16 23:34 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 08:16 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 14:25 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 16:21 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 16:01 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 08:21 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-16 15:46 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 18:07 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Me <invalid@invalid.de> - 2019-09-17 01:09 +0200
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 02:33 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 20:53 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 21:55 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-16 19:21 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 21:40 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-16 21:38 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 00:24 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:39 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 17:55 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 18:38 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 13:17 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-17 11:13 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (some concurrence). peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 13:29 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 08:36 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (Concurrence) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:20 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (Concurrence) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 17:31 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (Concurrence) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 10:56 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently (Concurrence) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-17 11:29 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 18:32 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Correction) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 12:49 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Correction) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2019-09-17 19:59 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Correction) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 14:09 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Correction) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 20:33 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-17 11:42 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 14:01 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 20:29 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 17:51 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 17:55 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 15:58 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-18 04:36 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 08:27 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Mike Terry Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:46 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- (Mike Terry Concurrence ] Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 18:00 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-17 08:23 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:52 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 11:55 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 18:09 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-19 18:22 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-19 14:44 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-19 17:31 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ Keith Thompson Concurrence ] Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-20 14:11 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 19:47 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 18:16 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 11:02 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- Reals are defined inconsistently Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 18:08 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-17 01:49 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 20:01 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-17 03:25 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 22:39 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-17 14:26 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:55 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Python <python@invalid> - 2019-09-17 18:59 +0200
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-18 04:01 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 22:23 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-18 05:19 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-18 01:39 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 09:59 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-18 09:21 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 10:41 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-18 13:55 -0700
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 16:17 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 23:09 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 23:02 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ CONCURRENCE ] peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-18 11:10 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-18 18:39 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-12 12:15 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 10:37 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-12 16:56 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 00:27 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-13 16:43 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:51 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-13 18:12 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-12 09:05 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-12 10:49 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-12 10:02 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 00:18 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-12 23:24 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 10:01 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 09:13 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 09:56 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:40 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 11:03 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 12:48 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 12:25 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 22:35 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 16:42 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:54 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:28 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 11:34 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 18:05 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE (Andy Goofed) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 18:00 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE (Andy Goofed) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 02:04 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE (Andy really did Goof) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 09:42 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE (Andy really did Goof) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-16 09:13 -0600
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE (Andy really did Goof) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 16:15 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 01:26 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 19:32 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 19:36 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 02:26 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 02:54 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:38 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 04:14 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 22:45 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-15 12:53 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-16 10:21 -0500
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-16 16:27 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-17 00:35 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 11:53 +0100
Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 02:22 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-12 17:04 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 00:10 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-12 23:16 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 10:09 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 09:41 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:36 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 11:14 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 13:03 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-13 19:08 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-13 12:34 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 16:38 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:49 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2019-09-14 22:00 -0600
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-13 16:45 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-13 16:57 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-13 11:55 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-14 02:30 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 00:53 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) BEN LIED !!! peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 00:55 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) BEN LIED !!! peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-17 11:33 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-09-14 17:14 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) George Greene <greeneg@email.unc.edu> - 2019-09-14 18:24 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-14 21:25 -0500
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> - 2019-09-15 11:50 +0100
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) George Greene <greeneg@email.unc.edu> - 2019-09-11 20:55 -0700
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) peteolcott <Here@Home> - 2019-09-11 23:15 -0500
Page 15 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 Next page →
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 09:13 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE (Andy really did Goof) |
| Message-ID | <qlo8qo$db7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210792 |
On 2019-09-16 8:42 a.m., peteolcott wrote: > On 9/16/2019 5:52 AM, Andy Walker wrote: >> On 15/09/2019 00:00, peteolcott wrote: >>>>> It is self evident that there is a bijection between the set of >>>>> points on a number line and the set of all numbers. >>>> No, that is not self-evident, and it is not even true for >>>> some definitions of "number". >>> If there is a number that is not on the number line that is >>> like a non existent thing that exists even though it does >>> not exist. >> >> [I realise that there is no helping PO, but others may >> find some of what follows interesting.] >> >> It would help if you understood what a number is; but >> you don't. Or what a line is; but you don't. Or bijections, >> proofs, .... You are in the position of a barrack-room lawyer >> who thinks the law operates entirely by common sense, dismisses >> all the subtleties as "extraneous detail", and, worse, refuses >> even to acknowledge that other countries may have different laws >> from the ones he thinks are "self-evident". Or of a preacher >> who believes not only that his religion is the One True way -- >> all religions do that -- but that no other religion even exists. >> >> There is a reason why the quite simple things that >> Cantor, Godel, Turing, ... discuss weren't discovered hundreds >> of years earlier. For several centuries, the new discoveries >> of modern-ish algebra, co-ordinate geometry, logarithms and >> exponentials, calculus, differential equations, complex numbers, >> and much else besides kept mathematicians, and scientists more >> generally, busy without worrying too much about rigour. Only >> when the cracks -- the "extraneous detail" -- started to appear >> did people go back to basics, to discover that what was "self- >> evident" to some was not so obvious to others, and in many >> cases wasn't even true. Lots of new mathematics came out of >> the drive to get the foundations right. >> >> It was filling in those cracks that made people think >> more carefully about the limitations of the way maths/science >> had developed. There is no longer One True Mathematics [though >> some fundamentalists still affect to believe so]. There are >> different sorts of number, different sorts of logic, different >> computers, quantum mechanics, ..., no one more or less valid >> than the others, and none of them guaranteed to be the version >> adopted by intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. >> > > It seems like entirely rhetoric utterly bereft of any reasoning > that addresses the point unless we consider the reference to > complex numbers as tangentially addressing the point. > > Every number that exists is on the number line. Make pretend > numbers that don't actually exist are not on the number line. 'Make pretend numbers that don't actually exist' would include things like "the smallest real number greater than 3.0". André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 16:15 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE (Andy really did Goof) |
| Message-ID | <qlo8u3$fil$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210792 |
On 16/09/2019 15:42, peteolcott wrote: > Every number that exists is on the number line. Make pretend That is far too narrow a view. You will recall cartesian coordinates from your school days. Consider the two-dimensional case. Why aren't those points numbers just as much as the points on the axes? Those "two dimensional" numbers are called complex numbers. Of course it doesn't do just to call them numbers unless they work. The complex numbers work in (at least) two senses - * One can do algebra with them (they constitute a field) and analysis (I think I have heard complex analysis called the theory of the logarithm). * They are of enormous use in science (think of Fourier analysis, spectrography and CT scans couldn't be done without it). > numbers that don't actually exist are not on the number line. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-15 01:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE |
| Message-ID | <87r24iflq5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #210672 |
peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
<cut>
> My ONLY point is that Cantor was wrong and all infinities are exactly the
> same "size" in that infinity doesn't actually have a size because it is
> not a number it is the process of {more}:
Which only makes you wrong. Specifically about what you thought Cantor
was saying.
Cantor's theorem states that, for every set S
|S| < |P(S)|
where P(S) denotes the power set of S and
|X| < |Y|
means that there is no surjective function from X to Y.
In order to leverage people's intuition, it makes sense to describe |X|
as the size of X, but it's the existence of functions between sets that
actually matters.
There is a bijection between R and P(N) so |R| = |P(N)| and hence |N| < |R|.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 19:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE |
| Message-ID | <UfudnaXEyM0pG-DAnZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210715 |
On 9/14/2019 7:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
> <cut>
>> My ONLY point is that Cantor was wrong and all infinities are exactly the
>> same "size" in that infinity doesn't actually have a size because it is
>> not a number it is the process of {more}:
>
> Which only makes you wrong. Specifically about what you thought Cantor
> was saying.
>
> Cantor's theorem states that, for every set S
>
> |S| < |P(S)|
>
> where P(S) denotes the power set of S and
>
> |X| < |Y|
>
> means that there is no surjective function from X to Y.
>
> In order to leverage people's intuition, it makes sense to describe |X|
> as the size of X, but it's the existence of functions between sets that
> actually matters.
>
> There is a bijection between R and P(N) so |R| = |P(N)| and hence |N| < |R|.
>
It does not matter what he said as long as the set of all numbers is countable
with integers then the whole concept of cardinality is refuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality
--
Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 19:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE |
| Message-ID | <UMGdnQjjFNo5GuDAnZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210716 |
On 9/14/2019 7:32 PM, peteolcott wrote:
> On 9/14/2019 7:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>> <cut>
>>> My ONLY point is that Cantor was wrong and all infinities are exactly the
>>> same "size" in that infinity doesn't actually have a size because it is
>>> not a number it is the process of {more}:
>>
>> Which only makes you wrong. Specifically about what you thought Cantor
>> was saying.
>>
>> Cantor's theorem states that, for every set S
>>
>> |S| < |P(S)|
>>
>> where P(S) denotes the power set of S and
>>
>> |X| < |Y|
>>
>> means that there is no surjective function from X to Y.
>>
>> In order to leverage people's intuition, it makes sense to describe |X|
>> as the size of X, but it's the existence of functions between sets that
>> actually matters.
>>
>> There is a bijection between R and P(N) so |R| = |P(N)| and hence |N| < |R|.
>>
>
> It does not matter what he said as long as the set of all numbers is countable
> with integers then the whole concept of
infinite sets with differing cardinality
> is refuted.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality
>
--
Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-15 02:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE |
| Message-ID | <qlk40e$kjm$4@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210717 |
On 15/09/2019 01:36, peteolcott wrote:
> On 9/14/2019 7:32 PM, peteolcott wrote:
>> On 9/14/2019 7:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>> <cut>
>>>> My ONLY point is that Cantor was wrong and all infinities are
>>>> exactly the
>>>> same "size" in that infinity doesn't actually have a size because it is
>>>> not a number it is the process of {more}:
>>>
>>> Which only makes you wrong. Specifically about what you thought Cantor
>>> was saying.
>>>
>>> Cantor's theorem states that, for every set S
>>>
>>> |S| < |P(S)|
>>>
>>> where P(S) denotes the power set of S and
>>>
>>> |X| < |Y|
>>>
>>> means that there is no surjective function from X to Y.
>>>
>>> In order to leverage people's intuition, it makes sense to describe |X|
>>> as the size of X, but it's the existence of functions between sets that
>>> actually matters.
>>>
>>> There is a bijection between R and P(N) so |R| = |P(N)| and hence |N|
>>> < |R|.
>>>
>>
>> It does not matter what he said as long as the set of all numbers is
>> countable
>> with integers then the whole concept of
>
> infinite sets with differing cardinality
>
>> is refuted.
If I were feeling especially devilish I would refer you to the downward
Löwenheim-Skolem theorem and Skolem's paradox.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality
>>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-15 02:54 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE |
| Message-ID | <87a7b6fhnd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #210717 |
peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
> On 9/14/2019 7:32 PM, peteolcott wrote:
>> On 9/14/2019 7:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>> <cut>
>>>> My ONLY point is that Cantor was wrong and all infinities are exactly the
>>>> same "size" in that infinity doesn't actually have a size because it is
>>>> not a number it is the process of {more}:
>>>
>>> Which only makes you wrong. Specifically about what you thought Cantor
>>> was saying.
>>>
>>> Cantor's theorem states that, for every set S
>>>
>>> |S| < |P(S)|
>>>
>>> where P(S) denotes the power set of S and
>>>
>>> |X| < |Y|
>>>
>>> means that there is no surjective function from X to Y.
>>>
>>> In order to leverage people's intuition, it makes sense to describe |X|
>>> as the size of X, but it's the existence of functions between sets that
>>> actually matters.
>>>
>>> There is a bijection between R and P(N) so |R| = |P(N)| and hence |N| < |R|.
>>>
>>
>> It does not matter what he said as long as the set of all numbers is countable
>> with integers then the whole concept of
>
> infinite sets with differing cardinality
>
>> is refuted.
Provided "the set of all numbers" includes R as a subset, then what
Cantor said does matter, because he proved that your "as long as..." is
a counter factual.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 21:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE |
| Message-ID | <nMCdnSbim76POeDAnZ2dnUU7-XXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210728 |
On 9/14/2019 8:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>
>> On 9/14/2019 7:32 PM, peteolcott wrote:
>>> On 9/14/2019 7:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>>> <cut>
>>>>> My ONLY point is that Cantor was wrong and all infinities are exactly the
>>>>> same "size" in that infinity doesn't actually have a size because it is
>>>>> not a number it is the process of {more}:
>>>>
>>>> Which only makes you wrong. Specifically about what you thought Cantor
>>>> was saying.
>>>>
>>>> Cantor's theorem states that, for every set S
>>>>
>>>> |S| < |P(S)|
>>>>
>>>> where P(S) denotes the power set of S and
>>>>
>>>> |X| < |Y|
>>>>
>>>> means that there is no surjective function from X to Y.
>>>>
>>>> In order to leverage people's intuition, it makes sense to describe |X|
>>>> as the size of X, but it's the existence of functions between sets that
>>>> actually matters.
>>>>
>>>> There is a bijection between R and P(N) so |R| = |P(N)| and hence |N| < |R|.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It does not matter what he said as long as the set of all numbers is countable
>>> with integers then the whole concept of
>>
>> infinite sets with differing cardinality
>>
>>> is refuted.
>
> Provided "the set of all numbers" includes R as a subset, then what
> Cantor said does matter, because he proved that your "as long as..." is
> a counter factual.
>
If the set of ALL numbers can be counted using integers then
there is no such thing as infinities with differing cardinality
and whatever anyone ever said to the contrary is fully refuted
because a bijection between integers and numbers has been shown.
--
Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-15 04:14 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE |
| Message-ID | <87muf6dzdf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #210733 |
peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
> On 9/14/2019 8:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/14/2019 7:32 PM, peteolcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/14/2019 7:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>>>> <cut>
>>>>>> My ONLY point is that Cantor was wrong and all infinities are exactly the
>>>>>> same "size" in that infinity doesn't actually have a size because it is
>>>>>> not a number it is the process of {more}:
>>>>>
>>>>> Which only makes you wrong. Specifically about what you thought Cantor
>>>>> was saying.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cantor's theorem states that, for every set S
>>>>>
>>>>> |S| < |P(S)|
>>>>>
>>>>> where P(S) denotes the power set of S and
>>>>>
>>>>> |X| < |Y|
>>>>>
>>>>> means that there is no surjective function from X to Y.
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to leverage people's intuition, it makes sense to describe |X|
>>>>> as the size of X, but it's the existence of functions between sets that
>>>>> actually matters.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a bijection between R and P(N) so |R| = |P(N)| and hence |N| < |R|.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It does not matter what he said as long as the set of all numbers is countable
>>>> with integers then the whole concept of
>>>
>>> infinite sets with differing cardinality
>>>
>>>> is refuted.
>>
>> Provided "the set of all numbers" includes R as a subset, then what
>> Cantor said does matter, because he proved that your "as long as..." is
>> a counter factual.
>
> If the set of ALL numbers can be counted using integers then...
...anything goes. We all agree one that. However, they can't be, so
don't worry.
> there is no such thing as infinities with differing cardinality
> and whatever anyone ever said to the contrary is fully refuted
> because a bijection between integers and numbers has been shown.
Nope. You've been asked to give it by more optimistic people than I and
of course there has been no such bijection presented. You think you've
given one, but you are too arrogant to ask why we don't agree.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 22:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE |
| Message-ID | <ubmdna9JRZojLuDAnZ2dnUU7-I3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210736 |
On 9/14/2019 10:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>
>> On 9/14/2019 8:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/14/2019 7:32 PM, peteolcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/14/2019 7:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>>>>> <cut>
>>>>>>> My ONLY point is that Cantor was wrong and all infinities are exactly the
>>>>>>> same "size" in that infinity doesn't actually have a size because it is
>>>>>>> not a number it is the process of {more}:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which only makes you wrong. Specifically about what you thought Cantor
>>>>>> was saying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cantor's theorem states that, for every set S
>>>>>>
>>>>>> |S| < |P(S)|
>>>>>>
>>>>>> where P(S) denotes the power set of S and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> |X| < |Y|
>>>>>>
>>>>>> means that there is no surjective function from X to Y.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In order to leverage people's intuition, it makes sense to describe |X|
>>>>>> as the size of X, but it's the existence of functions between sets that
>>>>>> actually matters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a bijection between R and P(N) so |R| = |P(N)| and hence |N| < |R|.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It does not matter what he said as long as the set of all numbers is countable
>>>>> with integers then the whole concept of
>>>>
>>>> infinite sets with differing cardinality
>>>>
>>>>> is refuted.
>>>
>>> Provided "the set of all numbers" includes R as a subset, then what
>>> Cantor said does matter, because he proved that your "as long as..." is
>>> a counter factual.
>>
>> If the set of ALL numbers can be counted using integers then...
>
> ....anything goes. We all agree one that. However, they can't be, so
> don't worry.
>
You have never agreed to that properly.
If anything goes then the square root of 5 is 17 and popsicles are
office buildings, so you don't really mean ANYTHING GOES.
>> there is no such thing as infinities with differing cardinality
>> and whatever anyone ever said to the contrary is fully refuted
>> because a bijection between integers and numbers has been shown.
>
> Nope. You've been asked to give it by more optimistic people than I and
> of course there has been no such bijection presented. You think you've
> given one, but you are too arrogant to ask why we don't agree.
>
--
Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-15 12:53 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE |
| Message-ID | <875zltepx9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #210739 |
peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
> On 9/14/2019 10:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/14/2019 8:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/14/2019 7:32 PM, peteolcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/14/2019 7:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>>>>>> <cut>
>>>>>>>> My ONLY point is that Cantor was wrong and all infinities are exactly the
>>>>>>>> same "size" in that infinity doesn't actually have a size because it is
>>>>>>>> not a number it is the process of {more}:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which only makes you wrong. Specifically about what you thought Cantor
>>>>>>> was saying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cantor's theorem states that, for every set S
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> |S| < |P(S)|
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> where P(S) denotes the power set of S and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> |X| < |Y|
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> means that there is no surjective function from X to Y.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In order to leverage people's intuition, it makes sense to describe |X|
>>>>>>> as the size of X, but it's the existence of functions between sets that
>>>>>>> actually matters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a bijection between R and P(N) so |R| = |P(N)| and hence |N| < |R|.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does not matter what he said as long as the set of all numbers is countable
>>>>>> with integers then the whole concept of
>>>>>
>>>>> infinite sets with differing cardinality
>>>>>
>>>>>> is refuted.
>>>>
>>>> Provided "the set of all numbers" includes R as a subset, then what
>>>> Cantor said does matter, because he proved that your "as long as..." is
>>>> a counter factual.
>>>
>>> If the set of ALL numbers can be counted using integers then...
>>
>> ....anything goes. We all agree one that. However, they can't be, so
>> don't worry.
>
> You have never agreed to that properly.
> If anything goes then the square root of 5 is 17 and popsicles are
> office buildings, so you don't really mean ANYTHING GOES.
Anything goes /in the theory in question/, so yes, sqrt(5) = 17 is
provable in a theory containing the contradiction you are claiming, but
analysis (a deliberately vague term for the theory of real numbers) can
not talk about popsicles or office buildings. Did I have to spell that
out? Sorry, I'll try to remember that in future.
>>> there is no such thing as infinities with differing cardinality
>>> and whatever anyone ever said to the contrary is fully refuted
>>> because a bijection between integers and numbers has been shown.
>>
>> Nope. You've been asked to give it by more optimistic people than I and
>> of course there has been no such bijection presented. You think you've
>> given one, but you are too arrogant to ask why we don't agree.
But of course you still don't give the function that we know is
impossible.
Note that there are two matters here: I failed to say that anything goes
in the theory being discussed rather than anything goes in the real
world. And I point out that you have again not given the key function
implied by your claim. Of the two, you comment only on the first. This
makes it abundantly clear that you have no interest in an honest
exchange of ideas. As long as people reply, you can convince your self
that you are being taken seriously, and the screaming of lambs is dulled
for a few moments.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 10:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE |
| Message-ID | <FqidnYOlOJIYNeLAnZ2dnUU7-dXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210754 |
On 9/15/2019 6:53 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>
>> On 9/14/2019 10:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/14/2019 8:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/14/2019 7:32 PM, peteolcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/14/2019 7:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>>>>>>> <cut>
>>>>>>>>> My ONLY point is that Cantor was wrong and all infinities are exactly the
>>>>>>>>> same "size" in that infinity doesn't actually have a size because it is
>>>>>>>>> not a number it is the process of {more}:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which only makes you wrong. Specifically about what you thought Cantor
>>>>>>>> was saying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cantor's theorem states that, for every set S
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> |S| < |P(S)|
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> where P(S) denotes the power set of S and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> |X| < |Y|
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> means that there is no surjective function from X to Y.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In order to leverage people's intuition, it makes sense to describe |X|
>>>>>>>> as the size of X, but it's the existence of functions between sets that
>>>>>>>> actually matters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a bijection between R and P(N) so |R| = |P(N)| and hence |N| < |R|.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It does not matter what he said as long as the set of all numbers is countable
>>>>>>> with integers then the whole concept of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> infinite sets with differing cardinality
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is refuted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Provided "the set of all numbers" includes R as a subset, then what
>>>>> Cantor said does matter, because he proved that your "as long as..." is
>>>>> a counter factual.
>>>>
>>>> If the set of ALL numbers can be counted using integers then...
>>>
>>> ....anything goes. We all agree one that. However, they can't be, so
>>> don't worry.
>>
>> You have never agreed to that properly.
>> If anything goes then the square root of 5 is 17 and popsicles are
>> office buildings, so you don't really mean ANYTHING GOES.
>
> Anything goes /in the theory in question/, so yes, sqrt(5) = 17 is
> provable in a theory containing the contradiction you are claiming, but
> analysis (a deliberately vague term for the theory of real numbers) can
> not talk about popsicles or office buildings. Did I have to spell that
> out? Sorry, I'll try to remember that in future.
>
>>>> there is no such thing as infinities with differing cardinality
>>>> and whatever anyone ever said to the contrary is fully refuted
>>>> because a bijection between integers and numbers has been shown.
>>>
>>> Nope. You've been asked to give it by more optimistic people than I and
>>> of course there has been no such bijection presented. You think you've
>>> given one, but you are too arrogant to ask why we don't agree.
>
> But of course you still don't give the function that we know is
> impossible.
>
> Note that there are two matters here: I failed to say that anything goes
> in the theory being discussed rather than anything goes in the real
> world. And I point out that you have again not given the key function
> implied by your claim. Of the two, you comment only on the first. This
> makes it abundantly clear that you have no interest in an honest
> exchange of ideas. As long as people reply, you can convince your self
> that you are being taken seriously, and the screaming of lambs is dulled
> for a few moments.
>
It is self-evident based on the definitions of the meaning of the terms
that every geometric point on the number line corresponds to a single unique
real number and every real number corresponds to a single geometric point
on the number line, hence bijection.
--
Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved
"Great spirits have always encountered violent
opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 16:27 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE |
| Message-ID | <qlo9lo$e7r$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210800 |
On 16/09/2019 16:21, peteolcott wrote: > It is self-evident based on the definitions of the meaning of the terms > that every geometric point on the number line corresponds to a single > unique > real number and every real number corresponds to a single geometric point > on the number line, hence bijection. You claim that there is a bijection 'twixt the integers and (your) reals+infinitesimals. And it is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-17 00:35 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE |
| Message-ID | <87v9trbyqx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #210800 |
peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: <cut> >>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: <cut> >>>>> If the set of ALL numbers can be counted using integers then... > It is self-evident based on the definitions of the meaning of the terms > that every geometric point on the number line corresponds to a single unique > real number and every real number corresponds to a single geometric point > on the number line, hence bijection. I would normally accuse you of being deceitful here, but I think you are just lost and having trouble keeping up. Your claim was that "all numbers" are countable (I've extracted just that key part). That needs you to give a bijection between "all numbers" and the naturals (though you can use Z or Q or any other countable set). The existence of a bijection between geometric points and reals is not at issue. It does mean you can use points rather than reals for your bijection with N (or Z or Q or whatever) and that handy. In fact I urge you to use points because the reals are very well defined and you don't know Jack about them. Points are nice and vague and you can easily waffle about them. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-15 11:53 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE |
| Message-ID | <qll57e$qch$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210733 |
On 15/09/2019 03:38, peteolcott wrote: > If the set of ALL numbers can be counted using integers then > there is no such thing as infinities with differing cardinality > and whatever anyone ever said to the contrary is fully refuted > because a bijection between integers and numbers has been shown. Shown by whom?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-15 02:22 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- COMPLETE |
| Message-ID | <qlk3pj$kjm$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210716 |
On 15/09/2019 01:32, peteolcott wrote:
> On 9/14/2019 7:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>> <cut>
>>> My ONLY point is that Cantor was wrong and all infinities are exactly
>>> the
>>> same "size" in that infinity doesn't actually have a size because it is
>>> not a number it is the process of {more}:
>>
>> Which only makes you wrong. Specifically about what you thought Cantor
>> was saying.
>>
>> Cantor's theorem states that, for every set S
>>
>> |S| < |P(S)|
>>
>> where P(S) denotes the power set of S and
>>
>> |X| < |Y|
>>
>> means that there is no surjective function from X to Y.
>>
>> In order to leverage people's intuition, it makes sense to describe |X|
>> as the size of X, but it's the existence of functions between sets that
>> actually matters.
>>
>> There is a bijection between R and P(N) so |R| = |P(N)| and hence |N|
>> < |R|.
>>
>
> It does not matter what he said as long as the set of all numbers is
> countable
To say X (a set) is countable is to say that there is a bijection f:X->N
where N is the set of natural numbers. The onus is on you to exhibit
such a bijection. That's tough since you don't know what a bijection is.
> with integers then the whole concept of cardinality is refuted.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-12 17:04 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qldqag$mpv$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210548 |
On 12/09/2019 16:49, peteolcott wrote: > On 9/12/2019 10:05 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> Assuming that X is the length of [3.0, 4.0) and y is the length of >> (3.0. 4.0), then what is > (x-y)/2? // singe geometric points are indivisible. > > What is 1/(x-y)? // I am not sure. I would have to think about it. > > This is basically 1.0 divided by infinitesimal. This may be disallowed too > because it seems analogous to dividing by zero. Oh dear. Your first post to sci.logic in this thread began "I specified a whole Infinitesimal number system:" But you didn't "specify" to such a degree that you can give an account of division?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 00:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <h4adnRY4Sq5QuebAnZ2dnUU7-c-dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210555 |
On 9/12/2019 11:04 AM, Fred wrote: > On 12/09/2019 16:49, peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/12/2019 10:05 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: > > >>> Assuming that X is the length of [3.0, 4.0) and y is the length of (3.0. 4.0), then what is >> (x-y)/2? // singe geometric points are indivisible. >> >> What is 1/(x-y)? // I am not sure. I would have to think about it. >> >> This is basically 1.0 divided by infinitesimal. This may be disallowed too >> because it seems analogous to dividing by zero. > > Oh dear. Your first post to sci.logic in this thread began "I specified a whole Infinitesimal number system:" But you didn't "specify" to such a degree that you can give an account of division? > Account for this division: x = 1.0 / 0.0 The same thing goes for dividing a single indivisible point. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-12 23:16 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qlf8o9$ug3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210590 |
On 2019-09-12 11:10 p.m., peteolcott wrote: > On 9/12/2019 11:04 AM, Fred wrote: >> On 12/09/2019 16:49, peteolcott wrote: >>> On 9/12/2019 10:05 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> >> >>>> Assuming that X is the length of [3.0, 4.0) and y is the length of >>>> (3.0. 4.0), then what is >>> (x-y)/2? // singe geometric points are indivisible. >>> >>> What is 1/(x-y)? // I am not sure. I would have to think about it. >>> >>> This is basically 1.0 divided by infinitesimal. This may be >>> disallowed too >>> because it seems analogous to dividing by zero. >> >> Oh dear. Your first post to sci.logic in this thread began "I >> specified a whole Infinitesimal number system:" But you didn't >> "specify" to such a degree that you can give an account of division? >> > > Account for this division: x = 1.0 / 0.0 > The same thing goes for dividing a single indivisible point. So are you claiming that this indivisible point is equal to zero? If so, then [3.0, 4.0) and (3.0. 4.0) will have the *exact* same length. If your indivisible point is not equal to zero, then you should be able to tell us exactly how many of these indivisible points are present in each of the above intervals. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 10:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <weednRtCYJ-0LObAnZ2dnUU7-UnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210591 |
On 9/13/2019 12:16 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2019-09-12 11:10 p.m., peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/12/2019 11:04 AM, Fred wrote: >>> On 12/09/2019 16:49, peteolcott wrote: >>>> On 9/12/2019 10:05 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> Assuming that X is the length of [3.0, 4.0) and y is the length of (3.0. 4.0), then what is >>>> (x-y)/2? // singe geometric points are indivisible. >>>> >>>> What is 1/(x-y)? // I am not sure. I would have to think about it. >>>> >>>> This is basically 1.0 divided by infinitesimal. This may be disallowed too >>>> because it seems analogous to dividing by zero. >>> >>> Oh dear. Your first post to sci.logic in this thread began "I specified a whole Infinitesimal number system:" But you didn't "specify" to such a degree that you can give an account of division? >>> >> >> Account for this division: x = 1.0 / 0.0 >> The same thing goes for dividing a single indivisible point. > > So are you claiming that this indivisible point is equal to zero? NOT AT ALL. Where the Hell did you get the idea that infinitesimal = 0.0 ? > If so, then [3.0, 4.0) and (3.0. 4.0) will have the *exact* same length. If your indivisible point is not equal to zero, then you should be able to tell us exactly how many of these > indivisible points are present in each of the above intervals. > > André > -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web