🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 
<ca19e249-3613-464d-8333-955ab5dc63a1@w7g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
 Transfer Principle <lwalke3@lausd.net> wrote:

> On Mar 13, 12:07�pm, Jim Burns <burns...@osu.edu> wrote:
> > On 3/12/2011 10:31 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:
> > > SHOW ME A DIGIT ON THE DIAGONAL THAT
> > > EQUALS D AND EQUALS D+1
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > THAT is your entire argument!
> > > THAT is your proof of BIGGER THAN INFINITY!
> > That obviously cannot be done. All of us
> > "standard theoreticians" agree with you,
> > although Transfer Principle refuses to jump
> > one way or the other, as near as I can tell.
> 
> If _both_sides_ actually agree on something, then I _don't_
> disagree with the _unanimous_ consensus. I only "refuse to
> jump one way or the other" when there's at least one _actual_
> poster on each side of the debate. I don't disagree with a
> unanimous consensus because I'd have _no_one_ to defend.
> 
> > The rest of the argument shows why you have to
> > be able to do this impossible thing in order to
> > list all of the real numbers -- which is why
> > it is "obvious" (after some thought) that
> > THE REAL NUMBERS CANNOT BE LISTED.
> > You apparently understand all this.
> > Why then are you trying to disprove a proven
> > thing?
> 
> ... proven in ZFC, that is.
> 
> > You might as well add to 2 to 2 over and
> > over again until you get something other than 4.
> 
> Every time someone mentions "2+2=4," someone else usually
> mentions piano interval arithmetic, in which a major 2nd
> plus a major 2nd is a major 3rd. For some reason, those on
> the standard side are _more_ willing to accept a theory in
> which 2+2 is something other than 4 (such as 3, for pianos)
> than they would accept a theory where there are as many
> reals as naturals.

Actually, I accept that there are as many reals as naturals, and, in any 
standard arithmetic, a whole lot more.
> 
> > The ironic thing about all this is that
> > EVEN IF YOU DID disprove Cantor (Let's say
> > you do this in some unimaginably bizarre
> > alternate universe)
> 
> ... or an unimaginably "bizarre" _theory_, like NFU, or
> zuhair's ND, and so on ...
> 
> > Why not give it a rest, and go do something
> > where there is at least a chance of success,
> > like teaching pigs to fly?
> 
> The existence of NFU and zuhair's ND show that disproving
> Cantor _does_ have more a chance of success than making
> pigs fly or spotting UFO's.

-- 
Science is based directly on objective physical evidence, 
and nothing that is not based directly on objective physical evidence 
can be science.