Quack
Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007
|
Quote (Bob O'H @ Dec. 25 2014,03:36) | I think this is a mathematical ad hominem argument from phoodoo. Not often you see that Quote | Me_thinks,
You claim that philosophy is useless, and yet you have no counter to my argument about how using Cantors method for pairing objects in two infinite sets is completely arbitrary and therefore solves nothing. Once I change the names of different kinds of numbers (rational, real, whole, integers, etc…) to one name, which includes any kind of number, Cantors arguments becomes meaningless. If I no longer have names for all the different kinds of numbers, then one infinite set simply contains varying numbers, and another infinite set also contains varying numbers.
I have no reason to say one set is bigger than another, if I have no separate names for different types of numbers, they are all just numbers. Why would I use his method of bijection, if the names for numbers is just numbers, rather than some man made category for different kinds( There are lots of other ways of categorizing numbers if I insisted on giving them the name one wants, why didn’t he match numbers with zeros to numbers without zeros, its just as arbitrary).
Cantor’s argument thus fails. Philosophy beats math. You, and Zacheriel, and Jerad have no defense for that. |
|
Life is wondeful. You don't even have to know more than the My Dear Aunt Sally formula (it's been helpful to me) to recognize crap when you smell it.
-------------- Rocks have no biology. Robert Byers.
|