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 1 of 17 [1] 2 3 … 17 Next page →
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-11 12:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (cardinality is incorrect) |
| Message-ID | <er6dnc11p8XwtOTAnZ2dnUU7-d9QAAAA@giganews.com> |
On 9/11/2019 2:31 AM, Reinhardt Behm wrote: > On 9/10/19 11:38 PM, peteolcott wrote: >> The next real number after 3.0 is the geometric point on the number >> line that is immediately adjacent to 3.0 on its right side. This geometric >> point is an infinitesimally larger than 3.0: encoded as the first point in >> the interval: (3,4] > > And between 3.0 and your "next" number (xnext) to the right is another real number: (3.0+xnext) / 2. > I specified a whole Infinitesimal number system: Real_Part[Infinitesimal_Part] where the Infinitesimal_Part is the number of geometric points offset from the real part. 0.0[1,∞] specifies the entire set of geometric points with a value greater than zero on the number line which self-evidently corresponds to the entire set of positive reals. Notice that this entire set is countable using the set of positive integers. Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-11 18:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qlbbbs$j2j$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210463 |
On 11/09/2019 18:05, peteolcott wrote: > On 9/11/2019 2:31 AM, Reinhardt Behm wrote: >> On 9/10/19 11:38 PM, peteolcott wrote: >>> The next real number after 3.0 is the geometric point on the number >>> line that is immediately adjacent to 3.0 on its right side. This >>> geometric >>> point is an infinitesimally larger than 3.0: encoded as the first >>> point in >>> the interval: (3,4] >> >> And between 3.0 and your "next" number (xnext) to the right is another >> real number: (3.0+xnext) / 2. >> > > I specified a whole Infinitesimal number system: > Real_Part[Infinitesimal_Part] where the Infinitesimal_Part is the number > of geometric points offset from the real part. > > 0.0[1,∞] specifies the entire set of geometric points with a value > greater than zero on the number line which self-evidently corresponds > to the entire set of positive reals. > > Notice that this entire set is countable using the set of positive > integers. If your "infinitesimal number system" contains the usual real numbers and some other things as well, it cannot have a smaller cardinality than just the usual real numbers on their own.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-11 18:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <sqydnZDTcotlHuTAnZ2dnUU7-bXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210469 |
On 9/11/2019 12:37 PM, Fred wrote: > On 11/09/2019 18:05, peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/11/2019 2:31 AM, Reinhardt Behm wrote: >>> On 9/10/19 11:38 PM, peteolcott wrote: >>>> The next real number after 3.0 is the geometric point on the number >>>> line that is immediately adjacent to 3.0 on its right side. This geometric >>>> point is an infinitesimally larger than 3.0: encoded as the first point in >>>> the interval: (3,4] >>> >>> And between 3.0 and your "next" number (xnext) to the right is another real number: (3.0+xnext) / 2. >>> >> >> I specified a whole Infinitesimal number system: >> Real_Part[Infinitesimal_Part] where the Infinitesimal_Part is the number >> of geometric points offset from the real part. >> >> 0.0[1,∞] specifies the entire set of geometric points with a value >> greater than zero on the number line which self-evidently corresponds >> to the entire set of positive reals. >> >> Notice that this entire set is countable using the set of positive integers. > > If your "infinitesimal number system" contains the usual real numbers and some other things as well, it cannot have a smaller cardinality than just the usual real numbers on their own. > > My infinitesimal number system forms a bijection between the integers and all of the geometric points on a number line. We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points on a number line and the set of real numbers. Therefore the set of integers and the set of reals are the same size and Cantor was wrong about 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 | 2019-09-12 01:15 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qlc2na$lfm$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210486 |
On 12/09/2019 00:32, peteolcott wrote: > On 9/11/2019 12:37 PM, Fred wrote: >> On 11/09/2019 18:05, peteolcott wrote: >>> Notice that this entire set is countable using the set of positive >>> integers. >> >> If your "infinitesimal number system" contains the usual real numbers >> and some other things as well, it cannot have a smaller cardinality >> than just the usual real numbers on their own. >> >> > > My infinitesimal number system forms a bijection between the integers and > all of the geometric points on a number line. A bijection is a function of a certain kind. Just what function are you referring to above? An "infinitesimal number system" doesn't sound like a function of any kind. > We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points > on a number line and the set of real numbers. Do "we". There are finite geometries which only have a finite number of points on each of a finite number of lines. > Therefore the set of integers and the set of reals are the same size > and Cantor was wrong about cardinality. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-11 19:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <pbWdnX3Y_uM1DOTAnZ2dnUU7-fednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210491 |
On 9/11/2019 7:15 PM, Fred wrote: > On 12/09/2019 00:32, peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/11/2019 12:37 PM, Fred wrote: >>> On 11/09/2019 18:05, peteolcott wrote: > > >>>> Notice that this entire set is countable using the set of positive integers. >>> >>> If your "infinitesimal number system" contains the usual real numbers and some other things as well, it cannot have a smaller cardinality than just the usual real numbers on their own. >>> >>> >> >> My infinitesimal number system forms a bijection between the integers and >> all of the geometric points on a number line. > > A bijection is a function of a certain kind. Just what function are you referring to above? An "infinitesimal number system" doesn't sound like a function of any kind. > >> We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points >> on a number line and the set of real numbers. > > Do "we". There are finite geometries which only have a finite number of points on each of a finite number of lines. YOU ARE A JACKASS. > >> Therefore the set of integers and the set of reals are the same size >> and Cantor was wrong about 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 | temakoutera62@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-11 17:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <3092649b-ef36-408d-8663-ee968a67ab17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210494 |
Le jeudi 12 septembre 2019 02:30:38 UTC+2, peteolcott a écrit : > On 9/11/2019 7:15 PM, Fred wrote: > > On 12/09/2019 00:32, peteolcott wrote: > >> On 9/11/2019 12:37 PM, Fred wrote: > >>> On 11/09/2019 18:05, peteolcott wrote: > > > > > >>>> Notice that this entire set is countable using the set of positive integers. > >>> > >>> If your "infinitesimal number system" contains the usual real numbers and some other things as well, it cannot have a smaller cardinality than just the usual real numbers on their own. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> My infinitesimal number system forms a bijection between the integers and > >> all of the geometric points on a number line. > > > > A bijection is a function of a certain kind. Just what function are you referring to above? An "infinitesimal number system" doesn't sound like a function of any kind. > > > >> We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points > >> on a number line and the set of real numbers. > > > > Do "we". There are finite geometries which only have a finite number of points on each of a finite number of lines. > > YOU ARE A JACKASS. > > > > >> Therefore the set of integers and the set of reals are the same size > >> and Cantor was wrong about cardinality. > >> > >> > > > > > -- > Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved > > "Great spirits have always encountered violent > opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein Can you, please, just address the issue of metaphor proving all your castles of pseudo-theoretical garbage wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-12 01:38 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qlc41e$j27$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210494 |
On 12/09/2019 01:30, peteolcott wrote: > On 9/11/2019 7:15 PM, Fred wrote: >> On 12/09/2019 00:32, peteolcott wrote: >>> On 9/11/2019 12:37 PM, Fred wrote: >>>> On 11/09/2019 18:05, peteolcott wrote: >> >> >>>>> Notice that this entire set is countable using the set of positive >>>>> integers. >>>> >>>> If your "infinitesimal number system" contains the usual real >>>> numbers and some other things as well, it cannot have a smaller >>>> cardinality than just the usual real numbers on their own. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> My infinitesimal number system forms a bijection between the integers >>> and >>> all of the geometric points on a number line. >> >> A bijection is a function of a certain kind. Just what function are >> you referring to above? An "infinitesimal number system" doesn't >> sound like a function of any kind. >> >>> We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points >>> on a number line and the set of real numbers. >> >> Do "we". There are finite geometries which only have a finite number >> of points on each of a finite number of lines. > > YOU ARE A JACKASS. What makes you think that? I'm just pointing out that writing of "the geometric points on a number line" is rather meaningless. Which number line? > >> >>> Therefore the set of integers and the set of reals are the same size >>> and Cantor was wrong about cardinality. >>> >>> >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-12 01:49 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qlc4nf$hpt$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210494 |
On 12/09/2019 01:30, peteolcott wrote: > On 9/11/2019 7:15 PM, Fred wrote: >> On 12/09/2019 00:32, peteolcott wrote: >>> On 9/11/2019 12:37 PM, Fred wrote: >>>> On 11/09/2019 18:05, peteolcott wrote: >> >> >>>>> Notice that this entire set is countable using the set of positive >>>>> integers. >>>> >>>> If your "infinitesimal number system" contains the usual real >>>> numbers and some other things as well, it cannot have a smaller >>>> cardinality than just the usual real numbers on their own. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> My infinitesimal number system forms a bijection between the integers >>> and >>> all of the geometric points on a number line. >> >> A bijection is a function of a certain kind. Just what function are >> you referring to above? An "infinitesimal number system" doesn't >> sound like a function of any kind. >> >>> We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points >>> on a number line and the set of real numbers. >> >> Do "we". There are finite geometries which only have a finite number >> of points on each of a finite number of lines. > > YOU ARE A JACKASS. A bijection is a function of a certain kind. Just what function are you referring to above? An "infinitesimal number system" doesn't sound like a function of any kind. If you use big words like "bijection" without knowing what they mean, you are the one who will look like a jackass. > >> >>> Therefore the set of integers and the set of reals are the same size >>> and Cantor was wrong about cardinality. >>> >>> >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Greene <greeneg@email.unc.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 18:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <3ff89673-ea76-48d4-b6b5-424adede73ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #210494 |
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 8:30:38 PM UTC-4, peteolcott wrote: > >> We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points > >> on a number line and the set of real numbers. True. > > > > Do "we". There are finite geometries which only have a finite number of points on each of a finite number of lines. Of course there are, BUT HE *SAID*, *ON*A*NUMBER*LINE*, jackass. He WASN'T TALKING ABOUT that. NOt that "a number line" is all that "geometric", but we do sort of know what he *meant*. > YOU ARE A JACKASS. A stopped clock is right twice a day. Fred was being a jackass. > >> Therefore the set of integers and the set of reals are the same size > >> and Cantor was wrong about cardinality. No, not "therefore" -- most of the "geometric points" on a number line are NOT located at integers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-15 02:32 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qlk4b4$p9j$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210721 |
On 15/09/2019 02:22, George Greene wrote: > On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 8:30:38 PM UTC-4, peteolcott wrote: >>>> We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points >>>> on a number line and the set of real numbers. > > True. > >>> >>> Do "we". There are finite geometries which only have a finite number of points on each of a finite number of lines. > > Of course there are, BUT HE *SAID*, *ON*A*NUMBER*LINE*, jackass. > He WASN'T TALKING ABOUT that. NOt that "a number line" is all that "geometric", but we do sort of know what he *meant*. > > >> YOU ARE A JACKASS. > > A stopped clock is right twice a day. Fred was being a jackass. I'm struggling with "the number line". Is it just another name for the real numbers with their algebraic and topological structure? >>>> Therefore the set of integers and the set of reals are the same size >>>> and Cantor was wrong about cardinality. > > No, not "therefore" -- most of the "geometric points" on a number line are NOT located at integers. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 21:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <sb-dnXxvgbALAuDAnZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210721 |
On 9/14/2019 8:22 PM, George Greene wrote: > On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 8:30:38 PM UTC-4, peteolcott wrote: >>>> We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points >>>> on a number line and the set of real numbers. > > True. > Someone corrected my on this. Some of the numbers on the number line (like PI) are not Real numbers. >>> >>> Do "we". There are finite geometries which only have a finite number of points on each of a finite number of lines. > > Of course there are, BUT HE *SAID*, *ON*A*NUMBER*LINE*, jackass. > He WASN'T TALKING ABOUT that. NOt that "a number line" is all that "geometric", but we do sort of know what he *meant*. > > >> YOU ARE A JACKASS. > > A stopped clock is right twice a day. Fred was being a jackass. > >>>> Therefore the set of integers and the set of reals are the same size >>>> and Cantor was wrong about cardinality. > > No, not "therefore" -- most of the "geometric points" on a number line are NOT located at integers. > -- 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 03:29 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <87y2yqe1h3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #210729 |
peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > On 9/14/2019 8:22 PM, George Greene wrote: >> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 8:30:38 PM UTC-4, peteolcott wrote: >>>>> We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points >>>>> on a number line and the set of real numbers. >> >> True. > > Someone corrected my on this. > Some of the numbers on the number line (like PI) are not Real numbers. What criteria do you use to tell if you should take someone's corrections? Because whoever it was got it wrong. pi (if you mean the pi we all know and love) is a real number (written with a lower case "r".) In fact, the two correspond exactly. The real numbers are the algebraic abstraction of the concept of a continuous unbounded line. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 21:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <avydndcTqpdtOeDAnZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210731 |
On 9/14/2019 9:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > >> On 9/14/2019 8:22 PM, George Greene wrote: >>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 8:30:38 PM UTC-4, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>> We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points >>>>>> on a number line and the set of real numbers. >>> >>> True. >> >> Someone corrected my on this. >> Some of the numbers on the number line (like PI) are not Real numbers. > > What criteria do you use to tell if you should take someone's > corrections? Because whoever it was got it wrong. pi (if you mean the > pi we all know and love) is a real number (written with a lower case > "r".) > > In fact, the two correspond exactly. The real numbers are the algebraic > abstraction of the concept of a continuous unbounded line. > OK great that makes things simpler. I was thinking that irrational numbers were not real. My correction has been corrected, thanks. -- 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 04:19 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <87h85edz6i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #210734 |
peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > On 9/14/2019 9:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >> >>> On 9/14/2019 8:22 PM, George Greene wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 8:30:38 PM UTC-4, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>>> We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points >>>>>>> on a number line and the set of real numbers. >>>> >>>> True. >>> >>> Someone corrected my on this. >>> Some of the numbers on the number line (like PI) are not Real numbers. >> >> What criteria do you use to tell if you should take someone's >> corrections? Because whoever it was got it wrong. pi (if you mean the >> pi we all know and love) is a real number (written with a lower case >> "r".) >> >> In fact, the two correspond exactly. The real numbers are the algebraic >> abstraction of the concept of a continuous unbounded line. > > OK great that makes things simpler. I was thinking that irrational numbers > were not real. My correction has been corrected, thanks. Why do you believe me rather than whoever it was that told you otherwise? Any why do you believe me about this but not about other things? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-14 22:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <ubmdna5JRZqLKeDAnZ2dnUU7-I2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210737 |
On 9/14/2019 10:19 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > >> On 9/14/2019 9:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >>> >>>> On 9/14/2019 8:22 PM, George Greene wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 8:30:38 PM UTC-4, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>>>> We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points >>>>>>>> on a number line and the set of real numbers. >>>>> >>>>> True. >>>> >>>> Someone corrected my on this. >>>> Some of the numbers on the number line (like PI) are not Real numbers. >>> >>> What criteria do you use to tell if you should take someone's >>> corrections? Because whoever it was got it wrong. pi (if you mean the >>> pi we all know and love) is a real number (written with a lower case >>> "r".) >>> >>> In fact, the two correspond exactly. The real numbers are the algebraic >>> abstraction of the concept of a continuous unbounded line. >> >> OK great that makes things simpler. I was thinking that irrational numbers >> were not real. My correction has been corrected, thanks. > > Why do you believe me rather than whoever it was that told you > otherwise? I looked it up. > Any why do you believe me about this but not about other > things? > The other things are merely your conformity to common misconceptions. -- 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 13:02 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <87zhj5daxh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #210740 |
peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > On 9/14/2019 10:19 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >> >>> On 9/14/2019 9:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/14/2019 8:22 PM, George Greene wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 8:30:38 PM UTC-4, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points >>>>>>>>> on a number line and the set of real numbers. >>>>>> >>>>>> True. >>>>> >>>>> Someone corrected my on this. >>>>> Some of the numbers on the number line (like PI) are not Real numbers. >>>> >>>> What criteria do you use to tell if you should take someone's >>>> corrections? Because whoever it was got it wrong. pi (if you mean the >>>> pi we all know and love) is a real number (written with a lower case >>>> "r".) >>>> >>>> In fact, the two correspond exactly. The real numbers are the algebraic >>>> abstraction of the concept of a continuous unbounded line. >>> >>> OK great that makes things simpler. I was thinking that irrational numbers >>> were not real. My correction has been corrected, thanks. >> >> Why do you believe me rather than whoever it was that told you >> otherwise? > > I looked it up. Ah. And presumably what you found, despite being conventional wisdom, did not cause you to think you might be wrong about anything you care about. >> Any why do you believe me about this but not about other >> things? >> > > The other things are merely your conformity to common misconceptions. Such as pi being a real number? Did you look up what an open interval is? The trouble is that that is a tad more complicated than pi ∈ R, so you probably got lost after a few sentences. But if you can press on just a little bit you can also find out whether there is a first element in (0, 1) just be looking it up. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 10:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <OZydnYvqYuUsNOLAnZ2dnUU7-efNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210755 |
On 9/15/2019 7:02 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > >> On 9/14/2019 10:19 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >>> >>>> On 9/14/2019 9:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/14/2019 8:22 PM, George Greene wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 at 8:30:38 PM UTC-4, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> We already know there is a bijection between all of the geometric points >>>>>>>>>> on a number line and the set of real numbers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> True. >>>>>> >>>>>> Someone corrected my on this. >>>>>> Some of the numbers on the number line (like PI) are not Real numbers. >>>>> >>>>> What criteria do you use to tell if you should take someone's >>>>> corrections? Because whoever it was got it wrong. pi (if you mean the >>>>> pi we all know and love) is a real number (written with a lower case >>>>> "r".) >>>>> >>>>> In fact, the two correspond exactly. The real numbers are the algebraic >>>>> abstraction of the concept of a continuous unbounded line. >>>> >>>> OK great that makes things simpler. I was thinking that irrational numbers >>>> were not real. My correction has been corrected, thanks. >>> >>> Why do you believe me rather than whoever it was that told you >>> otherwise? >> >> I looked it up. > > Ah. And presumably what you found, despite being conventional wisdom, > did not cause you to think you might be wrong about anything you care > about. > >>> Any why do you believe me about this but not about other >>> things? >>> >> >> The other things are merely your conformity to common misconceptions. > > Such as pi being a real number? Did you look up what an open interval > is? The trouble is that that is a tad more complicated than pi ∈ R, so > you probably got lost after a few sentences. But if you can press on > just a little bit you can also find out whether there is a first element > in (0, 1) just be looking it up. > https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying between two fixed points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not to belong to the interval. This clearly specifies that there is a point immediately after A and before B. These points don't magically disappear because there is no conventional way to directly reference them. -- 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 | 2019-09-17 00:21 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <871rwfddzq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #210803 |
peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: <cut> > https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment > An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying between > two fixed points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not > to belong to the interval. > > This clearly specifies that there is a point immediately after A and > before B. No it doesn't. I don't think there is any way forward here because you are simply reading things into that text that are not there. Normally I'd suggest you go and read about the development of the reals, but that's a non-starter for you. Another thing I'd suggest (to an actual student wanting to learn) would be to consider why (0, 1) is called an /open/ interval. When you learn what an open set is, you'll learn why you are wrong. What's actually going on is that you are thinking about a number line that does not have the right properties. This is the classic crank problem: your number line and your intervals are not ours, but if you were to say that the PO-interval (0, 1] has a first point, no one would care. > These points don't magically disappear because there is no conventional way > to directly reference them. There are, and always have been, conventional ways to directly reference these non-existent numbers. It's because even you have been able to reference them that I, and others, have been able to tell you they don't exist. Here are just a few of the ways of referring to one such non-extent number: the number immediately adjacent to 0 in [0, 1] the first number in (0, 1] min (0, 1] x ∈ (0, 1] s.t. ∀y ∈ (0, 1] x <= y Neither naming nor defining things make them exist. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-16 18:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <rdedndyh8t0thB3AnZ2dnUU7-YudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210855 |
On 9/16/2019 6:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > <cut> >> https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment >> An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying between >> two fixed points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not >> to belong to the interval. >> >> This clearly specifies that there is a point immediately after A and >> before B. > > No it doesn't. I don't think there is any way forward here because you > are simply reading things into that text that are not there. Normally > I'd suggest you go and read about the development of the reals, but > that's a non-starter for you. When we remove the beginning 0.5 from [0.0, 2.0] we derive [0.5, 2.0] with a first point of 0.5. When we remove the beginning 0.1 from [0.0, 2.0] we derive [0.1, 2.0] with a first point of 0.1. When we remove the beginning 0.0001 from [0.0, 2.0] we derive [0.0001, 2.0] with a first point of 0.0001. So when we remove a single point from the beginning of [0.0, 1.0] we end up with (0.0, 1.0] with beginning point that cannot be named. WE DON'T END UP WITHOUT A BEGINNING POINT. > > Another thing I'd suggest (to an actual student wanting to learn) would > be to consider why (0, 1) is called an /open/ interval. When you learn > what an open set is, you'll learn why you are wrong. > > What's actually going on is that you are thinking about a number line > that does not have the right properties. This is the classic crank > problem: your number line and your intervals are not ours, but if you > were to say that the PO-interval (0, 1] has a first point, no one would > care. > >> These points don't magically disappear because there is no conventional way >> to directly reference them. > > There are, and always have been, conventional ways to directly reference > these non-existent numbers. It's because even you have been able to > reference them that I, and others, have been able to tell you they don't > exist. Here are just a few of the ways of referring to one such > non-extent number: > > the number immediately adjacent to 0 in [0, 1] > the first number in (0, 1] > min (0, 1] > x ∈ (0, 1] s.t. ∀y ∈ (0, 1] x <= y > > Neither naming nor defining things make them exist. > -- 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 | 2019-09-17 02:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <87ef0fbudx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #210857 |
peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > On 9/16/2019 6:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >> <cut> >>> https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment >>> An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying between >>> two fixed points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not >>> to belong to the interval. >>> >>> This clearly specifies that there is a point immediately after A and >>> before B. >> >> No it doesn't. I don't think there is any way forward here because you >> are simply reading things into that text that are not there. Normally >> I'd suggest you go and read about the development of the reals, but >> that's a non-starter for you. > > When we remove the beginning 0.5 from [0.0, 2.0] we derive [0.5, 2.0] > with a first point of 0.5. You could be clearer, but you are not wrong: [0, 2] \ [0, 0.5) = [0.5, 2] with first point 0.5 but [0, 2] \ [0, 0.5] = (0.5, 2] with no first point. > When we remove the beginning 0.1 from [0.0, 2.0] we derive [0.1, 2.0] > with a first point of 0.1. > > When we remove the beginning 0.0001 from [0.0, 2.0] we derive [0.0001, 2.0] > with a first point of 0.0001. > > So when we remove a single point from the beginning of [0.0, 1.0] > we end up with (0.0, 1.0] with beginning point that cannot be named. No, you /can/ name it: min (0, 1]. It still does not exist. > WE DON'T END UP WITHOUT A BEGINNING POINT. How often will you say that? I'll keep saying that you are wrong until you learn what an open set is. Note that I am talking about real intervals because that is the context of the definition you cite above. PO-points and PO-intervals are not interesting to me. Can you at least agree that for the real interval (0, 1] there is no first number? Despite prior experience, you might possible answer this question because you seem to accept that, for reals at east, if x = min (0, 1] then x/2 must be be in the real interval (0, 1] and yet less than min (0, 1]. I say you accept this, because I've seen you claim that your "points" are not subject to this argument. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 17 [1] 2 3 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web