Philosopher19

I just want to say that I've had a look at the OP and I believe it to be very outdated. I believe that instead of reading the OP one is much better of...

A one to one to correspondence implies a count of one side compared to the other. But infinity is not reached or exhausted and cannot be counted to Is...

Two questions were asked, no answers were given: How would a difference in size be established between two sets when there is no counting of the numbe...

That sounds like bias and dogma to me as opposed to actual discussing of the argument with attention to detail.

To me it looks like no meaningful answer has been given to me and that what I have posted has not been paid attention to.

I think it's clear that one cannot count to infinity So one cannot say that x is an infinite sequence of numbers just because it goes on forever. If I...

Again, I have said this multiple times. I recognise and acknowledge the following: What has not been shown to me is how this logically obliges us to v...

Thanks Mark

My work on infinity and the universal set if anyone is interested: http://godisallthatmatters.com/2021/05/22/the-solution-to-russells-paradox-and-the-...

Given your responses in the other discussion (the infinity one). I see no point in continuing this discussion. Peace

When you say the axioms of naive set theory, are you referring to those notations that I asked you to put in clear language. If so, it seems to me you...

If you used reason you'd know that you cannot count to infinity and that you cannot say x is bigger than y without some measurement/count involved to ...

I leave the following as an open question to anyone who believes in infinite sets of varying sizes: Can we establish set x as being bigger than set y ...

Again:

That is not an answer. It's like me asking "can you count to infinity?" where the answer should be no, but someone responding with "Jack's diagonal ar...

Can you answer the following: Can we establish set x as being bigger than set y without counting the number of items in x and y? If yes, how? If no, w...

I followed your original notation and tried to get clarity on it. We came to the following: To which you answered "yes". To which I highlighted to you...

I've seen cantor's diagonal argument and the following objection applies to it: How would a difference in size be established between two infinite set...

But you haven't addressed my point. We are in agreement that p) you cannot have a set that only contains all sets that are not members of themselves. ...

There is a difference between: 1) There exists a set whose members are sets that are not members of themselves 2) There exists a set that contains all...

Thanks. So when you say: are you essentially saying "there is a set that contains all sets that are not members of themselves"? If not, can you clarif...

Ok is predicate ? "A and B are equal if every member of A is a member of B and every member of B is a member of A"? If not, what is it?

Are you saying that A and B only contain X as members of themselves and they contain nothing other than X as members of themselves? If you are, I don'...

No one our earth has ever seen a physically perfect triangle (because perfectly straight lines are impossible in our universe as far as I'm aware). Ye...

I don't understand the notation you have used. If you were to put it into words, I could reply in kind.

Whilst I believe it's possible for two different things to go on forever, I don't believe it's possible to have two different sized infinities because...

How would you respond to this: How would a difference in size be established between two infinite sets when there is no counting involved? And if ther...

Suppose two things are travelling at two different speeds. One is faster than the other. Both are set to go on forever. Would you say something like t...

You do not consider the possibility that Cantor is wrong? Suppose someone brought proof. How will you recognise it?

I believe I understand Russell's paradox very well, but I am not a mathematician.

But you don't solve a paradox or contradiction by seeking refuge in another. It is more damning/problematic to reject the set of all sets than to acce...

I'd say it's not just incomplete. It's contradictory in the sense that it logically implies "a list can't list itself". That's like saying a shape can...

That's like saying a list can't list itself. Is this in itself not enough to conclude that the Z-F set theory is inadequate/incomplete?

I think I understand where you're coming from. I agree that something cannot be the container of itself in the way that you mean "container of itself"...

But I am not saying this. I am saying the set of all sets semantically/logically/rationally contains all sets and it is a member of itself (because it...

So let's say he proved you could not have a set that contains all sets that are not members of themselves and nothing more. Did he prove that the set ...

To my understanding, the subset issue was because you could have a set of all sets that are members of themselves. Since you could have this you shoul...

Consider the following two lists: The list of all lists (Call this L) The list of all lists that list themselves (Call this LL) Both the above lists l...

Science is an empirical matter. It's something that is not 100% and is open to interpretation (like scripture). Something like triangles have three si...

Dear 3017amen I disagree with this point. There is no beyond logic and reason. There is rational and irrational; logical and illogical; truth and fals...

Thank you, and thank you for that which you translated and shared. It was good to read about the writer's interpretation of the attitudes of the weste...

Your write like a native speaker. I could not tell that you were a non-native English speaker. I am trying to make it mainstream that the rejection of...

A non-pantheistic (or non-omnipresent) view of God (the perfect being) is contradictory. So both monotheism and pantheism are true because there is on...

I studied philosophy at university, and the thing that I notice now that I did not notice as much back then, is that western philosophers do not seem ...

Is it not the case that any given theory, belief, or statement that is semantically inconsistent (contradictory) is false by definition? Can you give ...

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I have no interest in trying to accommodate you any further. What you have said to me and what I have replied to you is clear. I think you have failed...

When I say 'existence' I am referring to that which is omnipresent. Non-existence has never existed and will never exist. You are not existence nor do...

I've put effort into understanding you and trying to accommodate you in this discussion. I've also put effort into giving you explanations that are ea...

Essentially, I was looking for a reply to: Call the set of all sets X. Call any set that is not X, a Y. X contains all Ys plus itself. Every set Y is ...