Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)

From: Eray Ozkural exa (examachine_at_gmail.com)
Date: 12/02/04 

Date: 2 Dec 2004 08:43:37 -0800

cbrown@cbrownsystems.com (Chas Brown) wrote in message news:<ba7dcfd7.0411281613.2c4f1f22@posting.google.com>...
> It seems the "antimony" you are claiming is not a _logical_
> contradiction, but instead offends your preconception of what "size of
> a set" _should_ mean.
>
> The onus is then on you to resolve this for yourself via a different
> definititon of "size of a set". The standard one seems to work well
> for most mathematicians; in particular, as others have pointed out, it
> is consistent with one's intuition regarding finite sets, unlike the
> alternate definition you mentioned.

Reasonable suggestions. Thank you.

Regards, 

--
Eray Ozkural