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

Groups > sci.logic > #211056

Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT)

From Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups sci.logic
Subject Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (CONCISE RESTATEMENT)
Date 2019-09-19 01:42 +0100
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <87v9tp5d7c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References (16 earlier) <q_Gdne4MsYTKPxzAnZ2dnUU7-fPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <875zlq8cl4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <xLOdnXgeYsLQLhzAnZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87h8597b7v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lf2dnS1XPbvb7R_AnZ2dnUU7-V_NnZ2d@giganews.com>

Show all headers | View raw

peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:

> On 9/18/2019 12:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> peteolcott <Here@Home> writes:
<cut>
>>> Sure it does because other number systems cannot account for ALL
>>> of the points on the number line.
>>
>> Cantor proved the real are uncountable.  The theorem stands even if they
>> don't "account for ALL of the points on the number line".  The theorem
>> is about the reals.
>
> If Infinitesimals indexed by integers can count ALL of the numbers
> on the number line including the subset of numbers that are Reals
> then Cantor is refuted.

Of course.  In fact if you can do that you can simplify matters by
counting ONLY those that are reals.  That's the daft thing: most of your
infinitesimals are just a side show.  Throw away all of your
infinitesimals that are not reals and count the result (you can't).

> That Integers cannot count the Real directly yet can count them
> indirectly does not actually indicate a difference in the "size" of
> the sets, it merely indicates an incompatibility between Reals and
> Integers.

Well if this waffle means you can can't count the reals, you have not
refuted anything.  By all means show a surjective function from Z to
some set that includes the reals as special cases and I'll publish a
better paper with a direct surjection from N to R.  (Neither is
possible, by the way.)

The astute reader will note that we are still missing the bijection you
claim.  Mind you, we are still missing the impossible Turing machine you
claimed to have in December last year, so I'm not holding my breath for
any of this.  You never show any of the magic rainbow sparkle ponies you
claim to have.

<cut>
>>> It is pretty silly to envision any infinite set that is "larger"
>>> than any other infinite set.
>>
>> Ah, the argument from what someone with mental health issues considers
>> silly.  That carries no weight with mathematicians.  There is no
>> surjective function from N onto R.  This is a proved fact.  Stop
>> pretending you have the knowledge to even know what this means, let
>> alone refute it.
>>
>> I repeat my offer to show you why you are wrong, but you would have to
>> be prepared to both explain and learn.
>
> You can't show me where I am wrong

I can show any intelligent person that you are wrong about Cantor's
theorem simply by showing them the proof of Cantor's theorem.  And if
you ever publish a claimed surjective function from Z (or any countable
set) to any set the includes the reals, I will show that intelligent
person where you went wrong.  And I'll also show them what you've got
wrong about Turning machines it you ever post that impossible TM you've
boasted about having for months and months.

But you are not prepared to explain yourself and not open to asking
question when you don't understand an explanation.  You can't learning
anything problematic that way so I think you are right about my not
being able to to show /you/ where you are wrong.

For example, I've explained that your picking off points, one by one, in
any order at all from any set that includes the reals can't ever count
that set, but you never even commented on that much less asked any
intelligent questions to find out more.  You just don't want to know why
you are wrong.  You just want to keep boasting.

> you can ONLY show that
> a different set of assumptions leads to a different conclusion.

That's what you've spent most of the last two decades doing: talking
about things using the usual terms (to hook people in) and then, when
pressed, you pretend that you always meant things to be defined how
you'd like them to be.  Define PO-truth as just entailment and, poof!,
you get what you want.  The PO-numbers can be "based on zero" and
written as 0[k] with k in Z and, poof!, the "numbers" are countable.
It's so incredible shallow, but then being right is not your objective
here, is it?

-- 
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