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 13 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 17 Next page →
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-17 22:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? |
| Message-ID | <q_GdnekMsYSOPhzAnZ2dnUU7-fOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210971 |
On 9/17/2019 10:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>
>> On 9/17/2019 8:26 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/16/2019 9:25 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/16/2019 7:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>>>> <cut>
>>>>>>>> (0, 100) the first point is 0.0[1] and the last point is 100.0[-1].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if your points do not form a continuum. The real interval (0, 100)
>>>>>>> does, and it has no first and no last number.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [0, 100] has a first and last point and a first and last real number
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> (0, 100) has a first and last point yet no first and last real number.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. For any real x in (0, 100) we can find smaller elements. In fact,
>>>>> infinitely many: xy for every y in (0, 1) is smaller than x.
>>>>
>>>> There is a first point that cannot be identified with a real number.
>>>> It can ONLY be identified with the infinitesimal number: 0.0[1].
>>>
>>> A notation you refused to explain when you saw the half-baked answers
>>> you gave to my initial questions were taking you into dangerous waters.
>>>
>>> You agree, it seems, that for the intervals everyone else cares about
>>> which are subsets or R, (0, 100) has no least element. Please confirm
>>> this. It matters. If you confirm it I can more on to ignoring
>>> PO-points and PO-intervals because no one cares about them until you
>>> can define.
>
> Are you really try to avoid confirming this, or have you just stopped
> reading what people write?
>
The conversation has moved way past this. Now my point is built
on the basis of Mike and Keith's agreement.
I SUMMED IT UP MORE CONCISELY HERE:
THERE IS A POINT ON THE NUMBER LINE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO 0
On 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> we can define "iota" as an infinitesimal, something that is not a
> real number but that has a location on the number line, directly
> adjacent to the real number 0. It is greater than 0 and less than
> any positive real number.
WE CAN SUBTRACT A SINGLE POINT FROM AN INTERVAL DERIVING ANOTHER
INTERVAL THAT DOES NOT HAVE THIS POINT
On 9/16/2019 8:33 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> OK, so (A,B] = [A,B] - {A}, and that can be counted as an "operation
in which we get (A,B] from [A,B].
Mike Terry agreed with this verbatim: [A, B] - {A} = (A, B]
Infinitesimal Numbers would encode (A, B] as [A[1], B]
We merely extrapolate the very next elaboration
[A[1], B] - {A[1]} = (A[1], B] encoded as [A[2], B]
This shows how Infinitesimal Numbers directly reference immediately
adjacent points on a number line.
0.0[0] = 0.0
0.0[1] = the next point after 0.0
0.0[2] = 2 points after 0.0
0.0[3] = 3 points after 0.0
--
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 | 2019-09-18 05:19 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? |
| Message-ID | <87zhj26xtj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #210973 |
peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > On 9/17/2019 10:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: <cut> >>> On 9/17/2019 8:26 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: <cut> >>>> You agree, it seems, that for the intervals everyone else cares about >>>> which are subsets or R, (0, 100) has no least element. Please confirm >>>> this. It matters. If you confirm it I can more on to ignoring >>>> PO-points and PO-intervals because no one cares about them until you >>>> can define. >> >> Are you really try to avoid confirming this, or have you just stopped >> reading what people write? > > The conversation has moved way past this. So are you trying to avoid answering this? You certainly haven't answered it here so it looks like it. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-18 01:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? |
| Message-ID | <lnv9tq6lru.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #210973 |
peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
[...]
> The conversation has moved way past this. Now my point is built
> on the basis of Mike and Keith's agreement.
Stop using my name to support your claims.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-18 09:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? |
| Message-ID | <PYKdnZn3lqXG2x_AnZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210995 |
On 9/18/2019 3:39 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: > peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > [...] >> The conversation has moved way past this. Now my point is built >> on the basis of Mike and Keith's agreement. > > Stop using my name to support your claims. > HELL NO !!! THERE IS A POINT ON THE NUMBER LINE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO 0 On 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > we can define "iota" as an infinitesimal, something that is not a > real number but that has a location on the number line, directly > adjacent to the real number 0. It is greater than 0 and less than > any positive real number. -- 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 | 2019-09-18 09:21 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? |
| Message-ID | <qlti2i$vm4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210999 |
On 2019-09-18 8:59 a.m., peteolcott wrote: > On 9/18/2019 3:39 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >> [...] >>> The conversation has moved way past this. Now my point is built >>> on the basis of Mike and Keith's agreement. >> >> Stop using my name to support your claims. >> > > HELL NO !!! > > THERE IS A POINT ON THE NUMBER LINE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO 0 > On 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > > we can define "iota" as an infinitesimal, something that is not a > > real number but that has a location on the number line, directly > > adjacent to the real number 0. It is greater than 0 and less than > > any positive real number. > This paragraph that you keep quoting was followed by additional material which you conveniently ignore. That material made it quite clear that he was *not* supporting your view. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-18 10:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? |
| Message-ID | <K--dnQ3jksihzR_AnZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #211001 |
On 9/18/2019 10:21 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2019-09-18 8:59 a.m., peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/18/2019 3:39 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >>> [...] >>>> The conversation has moved way past this. Now my point is built >>>> on the basis of Mike and Keith's agreement. >>> >>> Stop using my name to support your claims. >>> >> >> HELL NO !!! >> >> THERE IS A POINT ON THE NUMBER LINE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO 0 >> On 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> > we can define "iota" as an infinitesimal, something that is not a >> > real number but that has a location on the number line, directly >> > adjacent to the real number 0. It is greater than 0 and less than >> > any positive real number. >> > > This paragraph that you keep quoting was followed by additional material which you conveniently ignore. That material made it quite clear that he was *not* supporting your view. > > André > Bullshit -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-18 13:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? |
| Message-ID | <lnimpp72a2.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #211005 |
peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
> On 9/18/2019 10:21 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2019-09-18 8:59 a.m., peteolcott wrote:
>>> On 9/18/2019 3:39 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> The conversation has moved way past this. Now my point is built
>>>>> on the basis of Mike and Keith's agreement.
>>>>
>>>> Stop using my name to support your claims.
>>>>
>>>
>>> HELL NO !!!
>>>
>>> THERE IS A POINT ON THE NUMBER LINE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO 0
>>> On 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> > we can define "iota" as an infinitesimal, something that is not a
>>> > real number but that has a location on the number line, directly
>>> > adjacent to the real number 0. It is greater than 0 and less than
>>> > any positive real number.
>>>
>>
>> This paragraph that you keep quoting was followed by additional
>> material which you conveniently ignore. That material made it quite
>> clear that he was *not* supporting your view.
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Bullshit
This paragraph that you keep quoting was followed by additional
material which you conveniently ignore. That material made it quite
clear that I was not supporting your view.
I do not expect to convince you of anything, nor am I interested in
doing so, but I expect these two paragraphs will appear with multiple
preceding ">" characters in multiple followups (unless you snip them)
The open interval (0,1] over the real numbers has no least element
(you have recently claimed that it does). An open interval (0,1]
over some proper superset of the real numbers could conceivably have
a least element, but I don't believe it could do so unless that set
is deliberately constructed to make this claim true, which is not a
useful thing to do (I'm less than 100% confident of this statement).
The cardinality of the reals is greater than the cardinality of the
integers. The cardinality of any superset of the reals is greater
than the cardinality of the integers. All these statements are in
direct disagreement with claims you have made here.
Given your habit of quoting the entirety of the parent article in
each followup, I expect you'll continue to cite me in support of
your claims while quoting this article in which I clearly state that
I disagree with you. I've asked you not to cite me in support of
your claims, and I ask you again now to stop, but I do not anticipate
that you will respect that simple request.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-18 16:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? |
| Message-ID | <AuidnQfeiZ5KAx_AnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #211046 |
On 9/18/2019 3:55 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >> On 9/18/2019 10:21 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2019-09-18 8:59 a.m., peteolcott wrote: >>>> On 9/18/2019 3:39 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >>>>> [...] >>>>>> The conversation has moved way past this. Now my point is built >>>>>> on the basis of Mike and Keith's agreement. >>>>> >>>>> Stop using my name to support your claims. >>>>> >>>> >>>> HELL NO !!! >>>> >>>> THERE IS A POINT ON THE NUMBER LINE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO 0 >>>> On 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> > we can define "iota" as an infinitesimal, something that is not a >>>> > real number but that has a location on the number line, directly >>>> > adjacent to the real number 0. It is greater than 0 and less than >>>> > any positive real number. >>>> >>> >>> This paragraph that you keep quoting was followed by additional >>> material which you conveniently ignore. That material made it quite >>> clear that he was *not* supporting your view. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> Bullshit > > This paragraph that you keep quoting was followed by additional > material which you conveniently ignore. That material made it quite > clear that I was not supporting your view. > > I do not expect to convince you of anything, nor am I interested in > doing so, but I expect these two paragraphs will appear with multiple > preceding ">" characters in multiple followups (unless you snip them) > > The open interval (0,1] over the real numbers has no least element > (you have recently claimed that it does). An open interval (0,1] > over some proper superset of the real numbers could conceivably have > a least element, but I don't believe it could do so unless that set > is deliberately constructed to make this claim true, which is not a > useful thing to do (I'm less than 100% confident of this statement). > The cardinality of the reals is greater than the cardinality of the > integers. The cardinality of any superset of the reals is greater > than the cardinality of the integers. All these statements are in > direct disagreement with claims you have made here. > Integer N = 0; HERE: N = N + 1; goto HERE; Since infinity is a process rather that a value it is impossible for any infinite sets to have a differing "size". Within the concept of the Infinitesimal Number system Reals are a subset and Integers form an index thus a bijection to Infinitesimals. We know that there is no Real number that is immediately adjacent to 0.0, thus we know that there is always a measurable gap between 0.0 and the next closest Real number, ONLY Infinitesimals totally fill this gap. > Given your habit of quoting the entirety of the parent article in > each followup, I expect you'll continue to cite me in support of > your claims while quoting this article in which I clearly state that > I disagree with you. I've asked you not to cite me in support of > your claims, and I ask you again now to stop, but I do not anticipate > that you will respect that simple request. > YOU CLEARLY STATE THAT YOU AGREE WITH ME IN THIS FULL CONTEXT THUS ANYTHING THAT YOU SAY THAT CONTRADICTS THIS AGREEMENT IS COUNTER-FACTUAL: On 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:> > Thanks for the clarification. > > Here's my attempt to refute the idea that (A,B] has a least element. > I'm not trying to argue with Pete (though I expect he'll see this and > respond to it). > > Briefly, if (0,1] has a least member, what about the result of dividing > that member by 2? > > In more detail, (0,1] is the half-open interval consisting of > the real numbers between 0 and 1, including 1 but excluding 0. > Assume that this interval has a least element, an element x such > that for each member m of the interval, either x<m or x=m. > > Let y=x/2. If we're dealing with real numbers, then 0<y<x, and y > is a member of the interval and is less than x -- contradicting > the original assertion that x is the least element. Conclusion: > the interval (a set of real numbers) has no least element. THE ABOVE REFUTED (A, B] HAS A LEAST REAL ELEMENT. THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THIS AFFIRMS THAT A NUMBER IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO 0.0 COULD BE CONCEIVED. > Arbitrarily inventing a new notation, let _(0,1]_ be a set of, um, > something or other. It includes all the real numbers in (0,1], > and it may also include some other things, each of which is greater > than 0, less than or equal to 1, and somewhere on the "number line" > between 0 and 1. Some of the non-real elements might be points, > or infinitesimals. I'll assert that for any two members of *this* > set, exactly one of a<b, a=b, a>b is true. > > I can imagine that *this* set has a least element. For example > we can define "iota" as an infinitesimal, something that is not a > real number but that has a location on the number line, directly > adjacent to the real number 0. It is greater than 0 and less than > any positive real number. > NONE OF THE FOLLOWING DISAVOWS THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH > For the same argument I used to demonstrate that x is not the least > member of the interval *not* to apply to iota, one of the following > must be true: > > - iota/2 <= 0 > - iota/2 >= iota > - iota/2 is not defined > > Though we can define something like this, I'm having difficulty > thinking of a way to define it that is consistent *and useful*. > We need the non-real members of the interval to behave radically > differently under common arithmetic operations. Not that there's > anything wrong with that, but it seems to require inventing a set > that's even denser than the reals, but is nevertheless in some > vague sense discrete rather than continuous. As far as I can tell > (and it's very likely I've missed something), most proposed systems > of infinitesimals do not have this property. > -- 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 | 2019-09-18 23:09 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? |
| Message-ID | <qlu9vd$11m$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #211050 |
On 18/09/2019 22:17, peteolcott wrote: > Integer N = 0; > HERE: > N = N + 1; > goto HERE; There is no infinity above, so it's difficult to see what it has to do with the matter. > Since infinity is a process It isn't. That is not to rule out the possibility that there is a meaning of "infinite" which means something like "going on forever". But the mathematical infinite/infinity is something else. > rather that a value it is impossible > for any infinite sets to have a differing "size". > > Within the concept of the Infinitesimal Number system Reals are a Can you not at least learn the proper spelling of "reals"? > subset and Integers form an index thus a bijection to Infinitesimals. > > We know that there is no Real number that is immediately adjacent > to 0.0, thus we know that there is always a measurable gap between > 0.0 and the next closest Real number, ONLY Infinitesimals totally > fill this gap. > >> Given your habit of quoting the entirety of the parent article in >> each followup, I expect you'll continue to cite me in support of >> your claims while quoting this article in which I clearly state that >> I disagree with you. I've asked you not to cite me in support of >> your claims, and I ask you again now to stop, but I do not anticipate >> that you will respect that simple request. >> > > YOU CLEARLY STATE THAT YOU AGREE WITH ME IN THIS FULL CONTEXT THUS > ANYTHING THAT YOU SAY THAT CONTRADICTS THIS AGREEMENT IS COUNTER-FACTUAL: > > On 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:> > > Thanks for the clarification. > > > > Here's my attempt to refute the idea that (A,B] has a least element. > > I'm not trying to argue with Pete (though I expect he'll see this and > > respond to it). > > > > Briefly, if (0,1] has a least member, what about the result of dividing > > that member by 2? > > > > In more detail, (0,1] is the half-open interval consisting of > > the real numbers between 0 and 1, including 1 but excluding 0. > > Assume that this interval has a least element, an element x such > > that for each member m of the interval, either x<m or x=m. > > > > Let y=x/2. If we're dealing with real numbers, then 0<y<x, and y > > is a member of the interval and is less than x -- contradicting > > the original assertion that x is the least element. Conclusion: > > the interval (a set of real numbers) has no least element. > > THE ABOVE REFUTED (A, B] HAS A LEAST REAL ELEMENT. Let it be C. Then A < C and A < (A+C)/2 < C. If C is the least such number, what of (A+C)/2?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-18 23:02 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? |
| Message-ID | <qlu9gq$2g2$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #211046 |
On 18/09/2019 21:55, Keith Thompson wrote: > The open interval (0,1] over the real numbers has no least element > (you have recently claimed that it does). An open interval (0,1] It may not be important, but (0,1] is not open, it is half open. The open intervals are of the form (a,b), the closed intervals are of the form [a,b]. Open doesn't mean not closed, nor vice versa. > over some proper superset of the real numbers could conceivably have > a least element, but I don't believe it could do so unless that set > is deliberately constructed to make this claim true, which is not a > useful thing to do (I'm less than 100% confident of this statement). > The cardinality of the reals is greater than the cardinality of the > integers. The cardinality of any superset of the reals is greater > than the cardinality of the integers. All these statements are in > direct disagreement with claims you have made here. > > Given your habit of quoting the entirety of the parent article in > each followup, I expect you'll continue to cite me in support of > your claims while quoting this article in which I clearly state that > I disagree with you. I've asked you not to cite me in support of > your claims, and I ask you again now to stop, but I do not anticipate > that you will respect that simple request. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-18 11:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- [ CONCURRENCE ] |
| Message-ID | <zPOdnf1xsIOfyh_AnZ2dnUU7-SPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #211001 |
On 9/18/2019 10:21 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2019-09-18 8:59 a.m., peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/18/2019 3:39 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >>> [...] >>>> The conversation has moved way past this. Now my point is built >>>> on the basis of Mike and Keith's agreement. >>> >>> Stop using my name to support your claims. >>> >> >> HELL NO !!! >> >> THERE IS A POINT ON THE NUMBER LINE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO 0 >> On 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> > we can define "iota" as an infinitesimal, something that is not a >> > real number but that has a location on the number line, directly >> > adjacent to the real number 0. It is greater than 0 and less than >> > any positive real number. >> > > This paragraph that you keep quoting was followed by additional material which you conveniently ignore. That material made it quite clear that he was *not* supporting your view. > > André > HERE IS THE RELEVANT CONTEXT PROVING THAT THIS CONTEXT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY DISAVOW THE QUOTED PARAGRAPH, AND THAT SUBSEQUENT CLAIMS THAT HE DID NOT SUPPORT MY VIEW ARE PROVEN TO BE COUNTER-FACTUAL. On 9/16/2019 11:38 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > Arbitrarily inventing a new notation, let _(0,1]_ be a set of, um, > something or other. It includes all the real numbers in (0,1], > and it may also include some other things, each of which is greater > than 0, less than or equal to 1, and somewhere on the "number line" > between 0 and 1. Some of the non-real elements might be points, > or infinitesimals. I'll assert that for any two members of *this* > set, exactly one of a<b, a=b, a>b is true. > > I can imagine that *this* set has a least element. For example > we can define "iota" as an infinitesimal, something that is not a > real number but that has a location on the number line, directly > adjacent to the real number 0. It is greater than 0 and less than > any positive real number. > > For the same argument I used to demonstrate that x is not the least > member of the interval *not* to apply to iota, one of the following > must be true: > > - iota/2 <= 0 > - iota/2 >= iota > - iota/2 is not defined > > Though we can define something like this, I'm having difficulty > thinking of a way to define it that is consistent *and useful*. > We need the non-real members of the interval to behave radically > differently under common arithmetic operations. Not that there's > anything wrong with that, but it seems to require inventing a set > that's even denser than the reals, but is nevertheless in some > vague sense discrete rather than continuous. As far as I can tell > (and it's very likely I've missed something), most proposed systems > of infinitesimals do not have this property. > -- 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 | 2019-09-18 18:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY clear yet? |
| Message-ID | <qltq53$28u$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210973 |
On 18/09/2019 04:23, peteolcott wrote: > The conversation has moved way past this. Now my point is built > on the basis of Mike and Keith's agreement. It's a well-known crank stratagem - just ignore questions you can't answer in the hope that they'll soon be forgotten. Is that why cranks so often change the subject, to hasten the forgetting?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-12 12:15 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qld9c5$ps6$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210509 |
On 12/09/2019 02:59, peteolcott wrote: > (1) Do you understand that all of the points on a number line are all of > the numbers? > > (2) Do you understand that a bijection between the integers and these > points would make these points countable? A bijection is a function of a certain kind. What bijection are you talking about? I.e., what is the function, and is it of the required kind?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-12 10:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <T9adnQd6dpPJ--fAnZ2dnUU7-YGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210530 |
On 9/12/2019 6:15 AM, Fred wrote: > On 12/09/2019 02:59, peteolcott wrote: > >> (1) Do you understand that all of the points on a number line are all of the numbers? >> >> (2) Do you understand that a bijection between the integers and these points would make these points countable? > > A bijection is a function of a certain kind. What bijection are you talking about? I.e., what is the function, and is it of the required kind? > > > I don't play head games sorry. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred <Fred@nowhere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-12 16:56 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qldprr$o39$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210545 |
On 12/09/2019 16:37, peteolcott wrote: > On 9/12/2019 6:15 AM, Fred wrote: >> On 12/09/2019 02:59, peteolcott wrote: >> >>> (1) Do you understand that all of the points on a number line are all >>> of the numbers? >>> >>> (2) Do you understand that a bijection between the integers and these >>> points would make these points countable? >> >> A bijection is a function of a certain kind. What bijection are you >> talking about? I.e., what is the function, and is it of the required >> kind? >> >> >> > > I don't play head games sorry. > Given your ignorance of many topics (which you seem to think is a good thing, you're probably on your own there) your readers are bound to wonder whether, when you use a technical term like "bijection", you know what the term means. If you are in a position to claim that there is a bijection between the integer and "all of the numbers" then you ought to be in a position to exhibit the bijection. You haven't because you can't. One reason you can't, is that you don't know what a bijection is. Prove me wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 00:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <g8CdnWPRkvY5tebAnZ2dnUU7-dnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210551 |
On 9/12/2019 10:56 AM, Fred wrote: > On 12/09/2019 16:37, peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/12/2019 6:15 AM, Fred wrote: >>> On 12/09/2019 02:59, peteolcott wrote: >>> >>>> (1) Do you understand that all of the points on a number line are all of the numbers? >>>> >>>> (2) Do you understand that a bijection between the integers and these points would make these points countable? >>> >>> A bijection is a function of a certain kind. What bijection are you talking about? I.e., what is the function, and is it of the required kind? >>> >>> >>> >> >> I don't play head games sorry. >> > Given your ignorance of many topics (which you seem to think is a good thing, you're probably on your own there) your readers are bound to wonder whether, when you use a technical term like "bijection", you know what the term means. > > If you are in a position to claim that there is a bijection between the integer and "all of the numbers" then you ought to be in a position to exhibit the bijection. > > You haven't because you can't. One reason you can't, is that you don't know what a bijection is. Prove me wrong. > It is not a frigging damn head game. I don't have to prove shit to you. Simply don't frigging assume that I am wrong and see where that leads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection In mathematics, a bijection, bijective function, or one-to-one correspondence is a function between the elements of two sets, where each element of one set is paired with exactly one element of the other set, and each element of the other set is paired with exactly one element of the first set. There are no unpaired elements. There is one of those things between the set of numbers and the set of point on a number line. -- 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 | 2019-09-13 16:43 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qlgde4$q29$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210595 |
On 13/09/2019 06:27, peteolcott wrote: > On 9/12/2019 10:56 AM, Fred wrote: >> On 12/09/2019 16:37, peteolcott wrote: >>> On 9/12/2019 6:15 AM, Fred wrote: >>>> On 12/09/2019 02:59, peteolcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> (1) Do you understand that all of the points on a number line are >>>>> all of the numbers? >>>>> >>>>> (2) Do you understand that a bijection between the integers and >>>>> these points would make these points countable? >>>> >>>> A bijection is a function of a certain kind. What bijection are you >>>> talking about? I.e., what is the function, and is it of the >>>> required kind? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I don't play head games sorry. >>> >> Given your ignorance of many topics (which you seem to think is a good >> thing, you're probably on your own there) your readers are bound to >> wonder whether, when you use a technical term like "bijection", you >> know what the term means. >> >> If you are in a position to claim that there is a bijection between >> the integer and "all of the numbers" then you ought to be in a >> position to exhibit the bijection. >> >> You haven't because you can't. One reason you can't, is that you >> don't know what a bijection is. Prove me wrong. >> > > It is not a frigging damn head game. I don't have to prove shit to you. > Simply don't frigging assume that I am wrong and see where that leads. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection > In mathematics, a bijection, bijective function, or one-to-one > correspondence is a function between the elements of two sets, where > each element of one set is paired with exactly one element of the other > set, and each element of the other set is paired with exactly one > element of the first set. There are no unpaired elements. > > There is one of those things between the set of numbers and the set of > point on a number line. I don't doubt your ability to copy-n-paste from Wikipedia. What is it? There is, supposedly, a map f:set-of-integers -> all-of-the-numbers. What is f(x)? Prove that your f is one-to-one and onto.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | peteolcott <Here@Home> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-13 11:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <o96dnXaxb6VlVebAnZ2dnUU7-VWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #210613 |
On 9/13/2019 10:43 AM, Fred wrote: > On 13/09/2019 06:27, peteolcott wrote: >> On 9/12/2019 10:56 AM, Fred wrote: >>> On 12/09/2019 16:37, peteolcott wrote: >>>> On 9/12/2019 6:15 AM, Fred wrote: >>>>> On 12/09/2019 02:59, peteolcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> (1) Do you understand that all of the points on a number line are all of the numbers? >>>>>> >>>>>> (2) Do you understand that a bijection between the integers and these points would make these points countable? >>>>> >>>>> A bijection is a function of a certain kind. What bijection are you talking about? I.e., what is the function, and is it of the required kind? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> I don't play head games sorry. >>>> >>> Given your ignorance of many topics (which you seem to think is a good thing, you're probably on your own there) your readers are bound to wonder whether, when you use a technical term like "bijection", you know what the term means. >>> >>> If you are in a position to claim that there is a bijection between the integer and "all of the numbers" then you ought to be in a position to exhibit the bijection. >>> >>> You haven't because you can't. One reason you can't, is that you don't know what a bijection is. Prove me wrong. >>> >> >> It is not a frigging damn head game. I don't have to prove shit to you. >> Simply don't frigging assume that I am wrong and see where that leads. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection >> In mathematics, a bijection, bijective function, or one-to-one correspondence is a function between the elements of two sets, where each element of one set is paired with exactly one element of the other set, and each element of the other set is paired >> with exactly one element of the first set. There are no unpaired elements. >> >> There is one of those things between the set of numbers and the set of point on a number line. > > I don't doubt your ability to copy-n-paste from Wikipedia. > > What is it? There is, supposedly, a map f:set-of-integers -> all-of-the-numbers. What is f(x)? Prove that your f is one-to-one and onto. > Do you comprehend the idea that every point on a number line represents a number and every number is represented by a point on the number line? Bingo !!! 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 | 2019-09-13 18:12 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qlgiln$ek6$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #210628 |
On 13/09/2019 17:51, peteolcott wrote: > On 9/13/2019 10:43 AM, Fred wrote: >> On 13/09/2019 06:27, peteolcott wrote: >>> On 9/12/2019 10:56 AM, Fred wrote: >>>> On 12/09/2019 16:37, peteolcott wrote: >>>>> On 9/12/2019 6:15 AM, Fred wrote: >>>>>> On 12/09/2019 02:59, peteolcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> (1) Do you understand that all of the points on a number line are >>>>>>> all of the numbers? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (2) Do you understand that a bijection between the integers and >>>>>>> these points would make these points countable? >>>>>> >>>>>> A bijection is a function of a certain kind. What bijection are >>>>>> you talking about? I.e., what is the function, and is it of the >>>>>> required kind? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't play head games sorry. >>>>> >>>> Given your ignorance of many topics (which you seem to think is a >>>> good thing, you're probably on your own there) your readers are >>>> bound to wonder whether, when you use a technical term like >>>> "bijection", you know what the term means. >>>> >>>> If you are in a position to claim that there is a bijection between >>>> the integer and "all of the numbers" then you ought to be in a >>>> position to exhibit the bijection. >>>> >>>> You haven't because you can't. One reason you can't, is that you >>>> don't know what a bijection is. Prove me wrong. >>>> >>> >>> It is not a frigging damn head game. I don't have to prove shit to you. >>> Simply don't frigging assume that I am wrong and see where that leads. >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection >>> In mathematics, a bijection, bijective function, or one-to-one >>> correspondence is a function between the elements of two sets, where >>> each element of one set is paired with exactly one element of the >>> other set, and each element of the other set is paired with exactly >>> one element of the first set. There are no unpaired elements. >>> >>> There is one of those things between the set of numbers and the set >>> of point on a number line. >> >> I don't doubt your ability to copy-n-paste from Wikipedia. >> >> What is it? There is, supposedly, a map f:set-of-integers -> >> all-of-the-numbers. What is f(x)? Prove that your f is one-to-one >> and onto. >> > > Do you comprehend the idea that every point on a number line represents > a number > and every number is represented by a point on the number line? > > Bingo !!! Bijection !!! > You don't know what a bijection is. The set of integers is denoted Z. I'll denote the set of all numbers S. A bijection is a function f:Z->S that is one-to-one and onto. For each j in Z you need to specify what f(j) is in S.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-09-12 09:05 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) |
| Message-ID | <qldmrj$675$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #210505 |
On 2019-09-11 7:03 p.m., peteolcott wrote: > On 9/11/2019 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: >> <cut> >>>>> 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] >> >> There is no next real number after 3.0. There is not even a next >> rational >> number after 3.0, and the rationals /are/ countable! I.e. you don't >> need there to be a successor function on points that respects the >> usual ordering of points to get a countable set between 3 and 4. As it >> is, you open yourself up to the obvious problem: > > The line segment [3.0, 4.0) is exactly one geometric point longer than > (3.0. 4.0). 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? What is 1/(x-y)? André > There is a geometric point immediately adjacent to 3.0 on the number line. > This geometric point does correspond to a number because it is on the > number line. > > Now I have to correct my prior reasoning. All of the geometric points on > the number line correspond to all of the numbers that exist. Some of these > are not real numbers. > > Since we can count all of these numbers with integers using the > infinitesimal > number system we have proven that the set of real numbers is not larger > than the set of integers. > > Real_Part[Infinitesimal_Offset] > > 0.0[1 to ∞] forms a bijection between the positive integers and all of > the positive numbers through all of the positive points on the number line. > > Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott > >> >>>>>> And between 3.0 and your "next" number (xnext) to the right is >>>>>> another real number: (3.0+xnext) / 2. >> <cut> >>> My infinitesimal number system forms a bijection between the integers >>> and >>> all of the geometric points on a number line. >> >> Ignoring questions won't make you right (but it will allow yo to keep >> boasting). >> >> Talking of boasting, it's now nine months since you first claimed to >> have an impossible "actual Turing machine" "fully encoded". No sign of >> you ever posting it of course. >> > > > -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.logic
csiph-web