Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 146 KB, 900x900, IMG_20171205_201705.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9345059 No.9345059 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

You have 15 minutes to post any justification that the axiom of infinity or one of its equivalents is wrong. I'm waiting.

>> No.9345075

We can observe infinity in real life; for example, God is infinitely powerful and good.

>> No.9345089
File: 50 KB, 488x398, Religion math.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9345089

>>9345059
Atheists are retarded, news at 11.

>> No.9345102

>>9345059
Let ZF\I be the set of axioms of ZF without infinity. Add another axiom: "No set is bijective to a proper subset". Proof of independence and consistency is left to the reader.

>> No.9345117

>>9345102
The statement is not true until you prove it, so I'm waiting

>> No.9345138

>>9345117
I won't hold your hand. It's well known from basic set theory classes that without the axiom of infinity you can not construct N or any other infinite set. It is easily shown that a set is finite iff it's not bijective to any proper subset. That's all you need.

>> No.9345145

>>9345138
>without the axiom of infinity you can not construct N or any other infinite set.
Oh well, without ridiculous axioms you can't make up ridiculous things that don't exist in real world, and to make any sense of stupid concepts as infinite sets you need to assume counterintuitive axioms

>> No.9345157

>>9345145
(you)

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action