Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/20/05
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:56:59 GMT
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 15:36:31 -0600, Albert Wagner
<albertwagner@cox.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>Daryl McCullough wrote:
>> Lester Zick says...
>>
>>
>>>Nonsense, Bob. An infinite cardinal is undefined and that's what makes
>>>it infinite.
>>
>>
>> No, infinite cardinals are well-defined, and undefined does not
>> mean the same thing as infinite. The fact that *you* don't make
>> a distinction between "infinite" and "undefined" doesn't carry
>> any weight.
>
>But infinity *is* undefined; At least it used to be. What is
>the definition of infinity in the new math? Is it a number? It
>is treated as a number in all of your other definitions.
Unfortunately I know the modern mathematikers answer to this, Albert.:
Infinity is the equality between sets and their subsets. Which is only
possible when sets and subsets are undefined to begin with. Go figure.
Regards - Lester
- Next message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Giuseppe Bilotta: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|