Re: Replacement of Cardinality

On 08/27/2024 07:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/27/24 3:11 PM, WM wrote:

Le 27/08/2024 à 02:06, Jim Burns a écrit :

On 8/25/2024 3:45 PM, WM wrote:

>

This function exists because
nothing contradicts its existence.

>
Except for the contradicting consequences of
its existence.

>
The function exists if actual infinity exists.
The function does not exist if only potential infinity exists.
>

¬∃ᴿx>0: NUF(x) = 1

>
Then NUF(x) does not exist and infinity is not actual and sets are not
complete.
>
Regards, WM
>
>

>
Well NUF(x) does not exist, but that doesn't say that infiity is not
actual, or that sets are not complete, just that your logic can't handle
it.
>
Your IGNORANCE doesn't prove that something can't exist for people who
can actually think.

Do you think that people who see that
usual plain comprehension results the
extra-ordinary sets like non-well-founded-sets,
feel the same way about purposefully defining
it away and enforcing such "IGNORANCE" via axiom?
I think so, at least some do.
And they're not wrong, ....