Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.logic > #210712

Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY

From Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups sci.logic
Subject Re: Cantor was wrong about cardinality --- APOLOGY
Date 2019-09-15 00:47 +0100
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <8736gyh247.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References (16 earlier) <NeudnY8TtYJx8-fAnZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87k1adhuwr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lIidnek9Mph54uHAnZ2dnUU7-VudnZ2d@giganews.com> <878sqqhmo3.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xOKdncFYveV4seDAnZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com>

Show all headers | View raw

peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:

> On 9/14/2019 11:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
<cut>
>>> The first point in this interval: (0.0, 1.0] very obviously
>>> comes immediately after the first point in this interval: [0.0, 1.0].
>>
>> There is no first point in the interval (0, 1] and that does not change
>> if you write (0.0, 1.0] or (0.000. 1.000] because they all mean the same
>> thing.  (There are a lot of things that are false that you think are
>> obviously true.)
>>
>
> I READ YOUR WORDS INCORRECTLY, SORRY !!!

OK.

> On 9/12/2019 8:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> No.  The common notational convention used for intervals shows that
>> adjacent points do not exist.  While [0, 1] has a least member, (0, 1]
>> does not.  You can remove the first number in [0, 1] to get (0, 1] but
>> you can't remove the first and second.
>
> If we have a sequence of points [0.0, 1.0] on a number line and we remove
> the first point (0.0, 1.0] then it is obvious that this second sequence is
> exactly one geometric point shorter than the first sequence.

The usual measure on intervals makes [0, 1] and (0, 1] the same length
so you need to say PO-shorter, and then define what you mean by that.
But this is a side issue.

> The difference in length is that we removed the 1.0 point from the first
> sequence leaving only the point that it was immediately adjacent to.

That there is a first point in [0, 1] is not in dispute.

> If we try to remove the next geometric point from the beginning of
> this sequence we cannot only because there are no notational
> conventions to say this. Some famous philosopher said that language
> limits thought.

No, you were able to express the thought perfectly well.  You talked
about "the point immediately adjacent to" 0.  That is perfectly clear,
and denotes something that does not exist.

You can't do impossible things just by inventing notions for them.
There is no number adjacent to 0, even if you say it's called 0[1].

You /can/ invent a set of objects of the form r[k] (provided you are
prepared to work harder at defining them you seem prepared to be), but
no one will care about them unless you can show them to be interesting
in some way (and that's /way/ more work than you are prepared to do).

> Since we just proved that adjacent geometric points exist, then by
> induction there is always a next adjacent geometric point on the
> number line.

You don't know what a proof is if you think you have proved anything.

-- 
Ben.

Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web