Yes, the (G)CH is that 2^aleph_n = alpeh_{n+1}. I must have been imagining some things were being said that weren't.
Boy do a lot of you assume that the continuum hypothesis (and the generalized continuum hypothesis) are true. As I said before there is a proper...
You seem to have fallen under the impression that Real Numbers are 'real' and Imaginary Numbers are some how 'imaginary'. The names are just names...
One can talk about proportions in this sense by taking limits. Actually there are a proper class of cardinal numbers (i.e. too big to be a set).
If I recall correctly, it is not reasonable to talk about 'the' measure of 'the' cantor set. A cantor set is some set of real numbers satisfying some...
There is a strong and marked difference between the universities in the world. If you came to me to do a post grad degree and you'd obtained an...
Depends what you want to do with it. Most undergraduate degrees outside of a handful of places (of which Cardiff is not one) are worthless in and of...
Does ghost even know what dimension means? Seems not. In fact he just seems like another deluded idiot that this site seems to attract. For one, can...
Do you know what the enlightenment philosophy is? A cynical summary might be that nonsensical crackpots and idiots are debunked and not allowed to...
That you're a crank.
there are the completion in the p-adic norm. do you understand the p-adic norm? no, that is not true in anyway. there is a way to define the...
your newly edited post is now makling even less sense than before. unrestricted comprehension is still allowed? enough, you are really not making...
you don't "avoid" russel's pradox like that since it is a consqeuence of (first order, your words, which i put in brackets since i believe you are...
bypass the problem? and? many people changed that. you did claim to be able to do wi within naive set theory though, which is false.
look back one post to soemthign you modified after i read it. you do that a lot don't you? most troublesome; they should remove your edit facility.
oversimplification? keep up boy. you asked why russell's paradox is a paradox of naive set theory. i told you why, it contradicts the unrestricted...
what are you blathering about? the only imprtant thing is that it is pssible to define a set as a collection of objects satisfying some common rule...
do you even know what naive set theory is? for one teaching you ought to. it states that a set can be defined simply by giving a condition that its...
you allude to being an expert in set theory in another thread. if you knew the slightest thing about set theory there would be no need for...
as a mathematician of many years standing now, i can safely say you ain't fooling anyone into thinking you know your arse from your elbow.
Separate names with a comma.
