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

Groups > sci.logic > #210970

Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality)

From Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups sci.logic
Subject Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality)
Date 2019-09-18 03:55 +0100
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <87pnjy8g96.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References (16 earlier) <trqdnSVNLtM7pB3AnZ2dnUU7-WHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sgovabwc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <j66dncFr9pPeyx3AnZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87a7b39hqr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <mpudnd2-lMQNkhzAnZ2dnUU7-eXNnZ2d@giganews.com>

Show all headers | View raw

peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:

> On 9/17/2019 8:26 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/16/2019 9:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/16/2019 8:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/16/2019 6:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
>>>>>>>> <cut>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Interval_and_segment
>>>>>>>>> An interval (open interval) is a set of points on a line lying between
>>>>>>>>> two fixed points A and B, where A and B themselves are considered not
>>>>>>>>> to belong to the interval.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This clearly specifies that there is a point immediately after A and
>>>>>>>>> before B.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No it doesn't.  I don't think there is any way forward here because you
>>>>>>>> are simply reading things into that text that are not there.  Normally
>>>>>>>> I'd suggest you go and read about the development of the reals, but
>>>>>>>> that's a non-starter for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we remove the beginning 0.5 from [0.0, 2.0] we derive [0.5, 2.0]
>>>>>>> with a first point of 0.5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could be clearer, but you are not wrong:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      [0, 2] \ [0, 0.5) = [0.5, 2] with first point 0.5
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      [0, 2] \ [0, 0.5] = (0.5, 2] with no first point.
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep getting confused by this.
>>>>> [0, 2] and we remove the very first point (0, 2]
>>>>> then necessarily all of the rest of the points remain.
>>>>
>>>> This is true.  I did not say otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>> Just because we don't have a real number to express the
>>>>> first point does not prove that there is no first point
>>>>> as everyone assumes.
>>>>
>>>> No one assumes it.  It's proven.
>>>
>>> If you look at it on the basis of real numbers it is proven.
>>
>> I am glad you accept that.  It is proven for any set that like those in
>> the article you cited so you will forgive me (an others) for think you
>> were talking about such sets.
>>
>>> If you look at it on the basis of infinitesimal numbers it is not
>>> proven.
>>
>> It is also proven for all infinitesimals defined by actual
>> mathematicians, but you can be forgiven for not know this because of the
>> value you place on ignorance.
>>
>> It will also be true of your infinitesimals unless they are useless.
>> You claim they are countable so they do not serve as a model for points
>> on a line, but ayway, you can't define them (and trying to get you to
>> will be like getting blood out of a stone) so exactly why they are
>> useless will remain a mystery.
>
> Keith Thompson understands that they could refute differing sized
> cardinality of infinite sets.

No he doesn't.  The trouble is, you don't understand what he's saying.
In fact he agrees with me though he puts it more cautiously.  I'll leave
it here for those that /can/ follow:

> 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.

-- 
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