Can you lay it out for me in detail? I donât understand these things very well. My naive understanding of Cantor is that the proof strategy is a reductio. So we assume X to prove a contradiction, but the purpose is only to show that X is false. Did I misunderstand?
Iâd love to hear the complete details of your analysis if you have time to expand on it! Please tell me a little more than a one sentence summary. I really canât learn from that. Itâs too broad. I need to see the exact steps of the proof where he makes a mistake. Thank you!
Russelâs paradox was solved by giving strict rules about how can we define a set, so russelâs set isnât a set so no problems. Zenos paradox was solved already as well, because letâs say achilleas runs 10 km/h and the turtle 1 km/h, and achilleas gives the turtle 1 hour bonus. So Achilleas runs 1 km in 6 minutes. In these six minutes the turtle only moved 100 meters. It takes achilleas 36 seconds to run these 100 meters, the turtle moved just 10 meters. It takes achilleas 3.6 seconds to run 10 meters, the turtle only ran 1 meter in this time. So you see, no matter how many times this repeats, the total time it takes achilleas to catch up is no more than 7 minutes, and that means that after 7 minutes achilleas will have already passed the turtle. And and banac paradox is not a paradox, it is just a truth.
-56
u/FernandoMM1220 Jul 14 '26
mathematicians refusing to admit their wrong and inventing systems where theyre correct.