What if science is wrong?

[esme]

No, it definitely requires that certain rules are broken, for example the infinite set +1 is identical to the infinite set, breaking basic mathematical rules.

this is because by the definition of infinity, infinity + 1 is already a member of the set.

[HeadingNorth]

The Cantor characterization explicitly breaks at least this rule (and by implication the opposite).

 

There is no rule to that effect. That's an observation of finite sets. When infinite sets are examined, it is not observed.

[MrSmith]

There is no rule to that effect. That's an observation of finite sets. When infinite sets are examined, it is not observed.

 

I apologise to everyone for mentioning infinity, I didn't anticipate the discussion that would follow.

[spooky3]

I apologise to everyone for mentioning infinity, I didn't anticipate the discussion that would follow.

 

Go on, next you'll be saying it was a random comment.

[Cyclone]

There is no rule to that effect. That's an observation of finite sets. When infinite sets are examined, it is not observed.

 

Are you arguing with the wikipedia article now? I know it can be wrong, but is it? Is all the talk about the axiom of choice wrong? Or is that just one axiom that you might choose to use and do Cantors proofs only come out of using that axiom?

[esme]

I apologise to everyone for mentioning infinity, I didn't anticipate the discussion that would follow.

 

This is a good point, we are going off topic, we should start another thread if we are going to discuss the mathematics of infinity