stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote |
785
MapouDecember 30, 2014 at 1:28 pm
daveS:
| Quote |
So, just as if we were measuring out two quantities of flour, we conclude that the set of real numbers is larger than the set of rational numbers.
|
No, I still don’t like it since I don’t believe for a moment that that there is such a thing as “the set of all real numbers”. One of the problems with many mathematicians is their refusal to acknowledge that we don’t live in a changeless universe. They inexplicably believe that operations occur in no time at all. So when they say “For every natural number n there is another number n+1, they ignore the fact that n+1 is an operation that has a duration. The expression “for every n” is an inexplicable magical poofery that assumes the very thing (infinity) that it is trying to prove or describe. It is self-referential fruitcake nonsense. It’s crackpottery in the not-even-wrong category.
Now, if you had said that the expansion of one set is faster than the expansion of another set, then there would be no contradictions at all.
|
This guy is hopelessly confused.
linky
|
