Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's only a proof if you take a leap of faith and accept certain things. You could argue that that's how math works, but to me the less axioms we need, the better.

I really love this quote from Wittgenstein:

"Where the nonsense starts is with our habit of thinking of a large number as closer to infinity than a small one".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_over_Cantor%27s_the...



Which assumptions do you find troubling?


That although both are infinite, there are actually more of one than the other.

That's treating infinite as if it's a limit, when it's not.

If it's uncountable and unmeasurable, than it's non hierarchical.


> That although both are infinite, there are actually more of one than the other.

That's not the assumption, that's the result.


You're right. The assumption would be that there's a countability difference between Naturals and Reals.

That Naturals are infinite but countable and Reals infinite and uncountable.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: