Re: Replacement of Cardinality (ubiquitous ordinals)

On 8/4/2024 1:44 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 08/04/2024 09:48 AM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 8/4/2024 10:36 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 08/03/2024 10:25 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

On 8/3/2024 11:51 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 08/03/2024 08:45 PM, Jim Burns wrote:

>

What does 'comprehension' mean where there are no sets?

>
What can you think it means.

>
Your rhetoric suggests that
_you_ don't have something in mind for the term
_you_ introduced,
and you'd like someone else to provide something
to have in mind. Please prove me wrong.
What does 'comprehension' mean where there are no sets?
Specifically,
what does 'expansion of comprehension' mean
in the context of
"geometry, axiomatic geometry or Euclid's"?

>
No, "what can you think", it means.
Usually it just means "construction".

>
Okay. Then you did answer my question.
"Comprehension", "construction" and "what can you think"
each seem to me very different from the other two.
I will let you carry on doing what it is you are doing.

>
I don't need your help nor permission, thanks.

>
I didn't offer help or permission.
>
You are using English words in a manner which
I don't follow, and,
not to brag, but
I've been speaking English for a really, really long time.
Thus, I'm going to stop trying to follow your use.
My comment was intended to be read as <wave bye bye>.
>

And it's rather presumptious of you to not
make what is equi-interpretable to be equi-interpretable.
>
Jaded, say, biased, willfully ignorant, hypocritical, ...,
"wrong".

>
It is not wrong, when talking about certain things,
to not.be.talking about other things.
It is not wrong, it is not possible to do otherwise.
>
There is no pair of integers in the ratio of √2
>
To say that
there are pairs of reals in the ratio of √2
does not argue against the first claim,
because they are claims about different things.
>
To pretend that it argues against the first claim
is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
>
>