Re: Replacement of Cardinality

On 8/30/2024 12:20 AM, Jeff Barnett wrote:

On 8/29/2024 2:09 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

Wolfgang Mückenheim has been rejecting
Dedekind.infinite sets, sets R such that
I can 1-1 map a strict subset of R to R.
WM calls them "potentially infinite", by which
WM means that these sets change, which means that
WM is not talking about _those sets_
which do not change.
>
A typical WM.argument sets up some sequence and
asserts by mathematics, by logic
(in reality, by "common sense", by "obviousness")
that the sequence has two ends.
Since the sequence has only one _visible_ end,
WM considers that proof of a second end which is _dark_

I've put my nose into a few of
the same newsgroups that you have and
I am aware of the aroma.
I no longer even think about interacting with
WM, PO, or a few others cut from the same sad cloth.
Of course I occasionally post something *about* them.
There are several possibilities for
the WM of these threads:
1) He's an idiot;
2) He's extremely lonesome and
 these interactions pass for "being engaged";
3) He's not who he claims to be
 (an instructor at a (junior?) college);
4) he's simply an outright troll;
5) He's religious;
6) He's delusional.

7) He's a victim of the Dunning.Kruger effect.

Of course any subset of these is possible.
>
In any event
no interactions with him will change his behavior --
that is one of his most interesting similarities to PO.
It's really too bad that some newsgroups
that were both interesting and educational
have fallen so far.
I remember the great hopes we all had
back in the late 1960s and early 1970s
for a different, better informed, and
just plain better world
because of the supportable vision
the ARPA research net seemed to offer.

Please, do not surrender your vision of
a just plain better world.
These things take time.
There's a phrase I heard somewhere that
explained so much to me that
it has become something of a catch.phrase of mine.
⎛ Technology is everything that doesn't work yet.
⎝ -- W. Danny Hillis
https://www.wired.com/2010/06/cognitive-surplus/
| Cognitive Surplus,
| the new book by internet guru Clay Shirky,
| begins with a brilliant analogy.
| He starts with a description of London in the 1720s,
| when the city was in the midst of a gin binge.
| A flood of new arrivals from the countryside meant
| the metropolis was crowded, filthy, and violent.
| As a result,
| people sought out the anesthesia of alcohol
| as they tried to collectively forget
| the early days of the Industrial Revolution.
Overflowing cities, distilled spirits, at the time,
were part of everything that doesn't work yet.
And, to some degree, they're still part --
but we've learned a lot in the last few centuries
about how to deal with all that.
I have an abiding faith that answers exist to
the idiot/troll/Dunning.Kruger problem.
And there are enough people who dearly want to
find those answers, that I feel confident in
my prediction that answers will be found.

What we all forgot was
the old wisdom that stated
"Character / ethics / personnel worth / soul / etc.
is what you are when no one can see you. Unfortunately
the internet made the magic shield that
exposed all of human nastiness while
masking the faces of the perpetrators.

It wasn't that long ago that everyone understood
and agreed with
⎛ Never pick a fight with
⎜ a man who buys ink by the barrel.
⎝ -- possibly Mark Twain
These days, essentially everyone buys ink by
the metaphorical barrel.
It is a situation which has its downsides,
but, even so, I prefer it to the previous arrangement.