![]() |
Julius König |
[edit]

![]() |
Julius König |
The foundations of set theory are a formalization and legalization of facts which are taken from the internal view of our consciousness, such that our "scientific thinking" itself is an object of scientific thinking.
It is easy to show that the finitely defined elements of the continuum form a subset the continuum of cardinality <math>\aleph_0</math>. The reason is that such a definition must be given completely by a finite number of letters and punctuation marks, only a finite number of which is available.
Infinite definitions (which are not possible in finite time) are absurdities. If König's claim concerning the cardinality <math>\aleph_0</math> of all finitely definable real numbers was correct, it would imply that the whole continuum of real numbers was countable; this is most certainly wrong. Therefore König's assumption must be in error. Am I wrong or am I right?
in a strangely simple way to the result that the continuum cannot get well-ordered. If we imagine the elements of the continuum as a well-ordered set, those elements which cannot be finitely defined form a subset of that well-ordered set which certainly contains elements of the continuum. Hence in this well-order there should be a first not finitely definable element, following upon all finitely definable numbers. This is impossible. This number has just been finitely defined by the last sentence. The assumption that the continuum could be well-ordered has led to a contradiction.
You certainly heard that Mr. Julius König of Budapest was lead astray, by a theorem of Mr. Bernstein which in general is wrong, to give a talk at Heidelberg, on the international congress of mathematicians, opposing my theorem according to which every set, i.e., every consistent multitude can be assigned an aleph. Anyway, the positive contributions from König himself are well done.
What Kronecker and his pupils as well as <i>[[Paul Albert Gordan
Then it will show up that </i>Poincaré's and König's<i> attacks against set theory are nonsense.
This biography says:
This biography says:
This biography says:
This biography says:
This biography says:
This biography says: