TonesInDeepFreeze

I didn't get mixed up. You were mixed up. I had no comment on that. Rather, your replies regarding the mechanics of the ordinary proof were confused. ...

Even if the other party were in error (which is not the case here anyway), if you are also in error, then you could admit it. Actually, it seems you c...

I don't speak for Banno, but I have said that there is no set named with the noun 'infinity', but rather there is the adjective 'is infinite' defined:...

Amazing in the forms of incorrigibility.

You're lying about me. (Though you weasel with 'if'.) I never said that Wittgenstein has little to do with mathematics. It's overwhelmingly the case t...

You have not shown that I've failed to know what has been said. When you say "just", you're lying. I post extensive arguments that are not ad hominem,...

You are amazing! You said that mathematics takes 'infinite' to mean 'finite'. Then you said that actually you meant that Wittgenstein said that. Then ...

First, you said that mathematics takes 'infinite' to mean 'finite'. You didn't say anything about Wittgenstein there. Then, you said that you expected...

I haven't made any claims about him, other than that, at least at face value, "discussions are finite" does not mean that mathematics regards 'infinit...

That might be the case. That might be part of Wittgenstein's argument against the notion of infinity. I don't know. But even if it is, it still is not...

What? Are you trolling? Banno didn't say that discussions are not finite. He is saying that "discussions are finite" doesn't mean that mathematics tak...

If he's saying that there, then he's definitely not "clearly" saying it. I don't claim to know what he is driving at. But at least at face value, the ...

I addressed that. You SKIPPED it. If you have something to say specific about those mathematicians/philsophers, then please say what it is.

And I gave it to you! In detail. With clear, exact explanation. Again, if I list for you the titles and authors of the many textbooks that are current...

You said that mathematics regards 'infinite' to mean 'not finite'. You didn't say anything about Wittgenstein there. If by saying that mathematics tak...

So what? It doesn't say that mathematics takes 'infinite' to mean 'finite'. And even if it did (which it does not), it doesn't represent mathematics o...

The quote below deserves attention as among worst: The textbooks I can cite you are not just reputable, but they are among the most standard, most use...

(1) Please link to where you quoted Wittgenstein writing that 'infinite' in mathematics means 'finite'. (2) Wittgenstein doesn't speak for mathematics...

You said, "Problem with Set Theory is that their concept "infinite" means "finite"" What set theory textbook, or any reference in set theory or mathem...

Funny thing is that, though I might be mistaken, I suspect that there is an error in the article (though it is not material). The article says that in...

It might be jolly for you to say what you think is the very first incorrect sentence in the Stanford article.

Just enough to think you understand it. But more than enough for you to completely mangle it. You've said that about twenty times already, yet you con...

Again, you're mixed up, and likely unfamiliar with proof by contradiction. We prove that the assumption "there is a set whose members are all and only...

Same as above. You're mixed up and have it reversed. We very clearly do NOT think there is such a set. Rather, we PROVE that there is no such set.

You are so very mixed up that you are getting this all completely reversed. No, I do not at all suggest that such a set exists. Rather, we are giving ...

What book or article in the subject have you read/researched?

Oh, yes you will. I guarantee it.

So it's settled in your mind that you won't read even a single book or article about this subject, but that others should read your website?

Ugh.

Don't have time for all the replies I want to make lately, but this one is easy: A common definition of 'infinite' in mathematics is 'not finite' You ...

What is your basis for saying that? Why do you believe that?

As we're setting up curricula to fulfill your own point of view, we should keep in mind that AI itself came from mathematics and the study of computab...

A paradox occurs when there is a contradiction or highly counter-intuitive statement that follows from premises or principles that we regard as themse...

Time, inclination and patience permitting, I hope to get caught up at some time to responding to the recent various misconceptions, non sequiturs, str...

The way it is done in ordinary formal mathematics is that there are open terms and closed terms. Open terms have free variables. Closed terms have no ...

That is indeed a doozy. Yet AI Chat is only somewhat less misinformational than Wikipedia.

That is incoherent and has no apparent meaning. "A is a not a member of of both A and B" does not take a qualifier "In B". In general: Let P be any fo...

Great. That's progress.

I don't know what you mean by "dismissed" but, mathematics came up with a system in which the paradox does not occur.

"The math" refers to what mathematics? After Russell discovered the paradox, mathematicians replaced the systems that allowed the paradox with systems...

Who or what never had the set? And what is "the first place"? You, personally? People who don't work with set theory?

In a theory with unrestricted comprehension we define the set whose members are all and only those sets that are not members of themselves. And having...

That's a common misconception. Yes, ZFC has the axiom of regularity that implies that no set is a member of itself. But that doesn't avoid Russell's p...

Since you are harkening to the original post, see that it is a question about the infinitude of intervals on the real number line, and about the numbe...

False dichotomy. A dichotomy insisted upon only by your idiosyncratic dogma, enabled by your inability to turn off in your head for even one moment yo...

I stated exactly what it clearly does: It shows that P and Q are not equivalent. The language is as simple as it can be while being exact, rigorous an...

Of course, my point went right past you no matter that I explained it clearly. There are many different and alternative formal axiom systems in mathem...

Who is "they"? What specific mathematicians do you claim that about? What specific mathematicians do claim have said that the infinite sets of mathema...

The analogy was not irrelevant. And the key word in what you just said is "appears" but the other crucial words you left out are "to me", as indeed wh...

Perhaps not axioms as the main approach. And philosophy ranges from poetic through speculative, hypothetical, concrete and formal. But deductive reaso...