Re: Infinity is not that big!
From: Robert Low (mtx014_at_linux.services.coventry.ac.uk)
Date: 10/29/04
- Next message: Still W. Bee: "Re: "basis for mathematics""
- Previous message: HERC777: "Re: Infinity is not that big!"
- In reply to: HERC777: "Re: Infinity is not that big!"
- Next in thread: Abraham Buckingham: "Re: Infinity is not that big!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 29 Oct 2004 08:24:22 GMT
HERC777 <herc777@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The intention here is that "infinty is BIG" "Bigger than anything else" is
>misleading. Its more like just 'bigger', no size of its own.
>Of the natural numbers 1 2 3 4 5 ..
>0 is left and oo is right, they don't really count.
So you're doing a one-point compactification of the positive
integers. Now it all makes perfect sense...well, maybe
apart from the 'using it to do arithmetic' part.
-- Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/
- Next message: Still W. Bee: "Re: "basis for mathematics""
- Previous message: HERC777: "Re: Infinity is not that big!"
- In reply to: HERC777: "Re: Infinity is not that big!"
- Next in thread: Abraham Buckingham: "Re: Infinity is not that big!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|