And yet Cantor. — Banno
but i do not think they are equal in terms of magnitude or value — punos
It seems possible to map a smaller infinity, one to one, on a larger infinity simply by freezing the larger infinity and letting the smaller one catch up. — Mark Nyquist
Since we set imaginary parameters anything goes. This is not based on anything physical at all. — Mark Nyquist
Well, what you call truths I call Abstractions and the parameters can be anything we choose — Mark Nyquist
How would a difference in size be established between them when there is no counting involved? — Philosopher19
You've already admitted that you're not a mathematician, so it's strange that you think you know mathematics better than Cantor (and Russell). — Michael
I've seen cantor's diagonal argument and the following objection applies to it: — Philosopher19
Can we establish set x as being bigger than set y without counting the number of items in x and y? If yes, how? — Philosopher19
That is not an answer. — Philosopher19
I've seen Cantor's diagonal argument. It does not answer the questions I asked you in my last post to you. — Philosopher19
Can we establish set x as being bigger than set y without counting the number of items in x and y? If yes, how? — Philosopher19
Yes, we can establish set X as being "bigger" than set Y without counting the number of items in X and Y. We can establish this by using Cantor's diagonal argument. If you were a mathematician you would understand it. — Michael
and that you cannot say x is bigger than y without some measurement/count involved to compare the sizes of the two. — Philosopher19
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement â€” just fascinating conversations.