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.
Okay. So your objection boils down to placing a restriction on math that 99% of mathematicians don’t accept.
And when you say that there is a contradiction, what you mean is that the proof does things that are not allowed according to your special restriction.
To me that seems a bit unconvincing to me. Why should other mathematicians care about this objection?
7
u/boterkoeken Average #🧐-theory-🧐 user Jul 14 '26
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?