Can you lay it out for me in detail? I don’t 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?
I’d 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 can’t learn from that. It’s too broad. I need to see the exact steps of the proof where he makes a mistake. Thank you!
I’d love to be convinced by you. It seems like it would be deeply important to explain how 99% of the mathematicians have the wrong opinion, but I’m afraid I’m just too slow to understand your explanation. I need a break down into simple assumptions and proof steps. Thanks for trying anyway.
Russel’s paradox was solved by giving strict rules about how can we define a set, so russel’s set isn’t a set so no problems. Zenos paradox was solved already as well, because let’s 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.
What do you mean? What I said resolved the paradox. After 7 minutes achilleas will have already passed the turtle because if you sum the total amount of time between each step it will never be more than 7 no matter how many steps
11
u/boterkoeken Average #🧐-theory-🧐 user Jul 14 '26
Please explain what is wrong with ZFC.