Re: Questions on sets with infinitely many elements

On Mar 9, 7:41 pm, "MoeBlee" <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 9, 3:44 am, "Albrecht" <albst...@xxxxxx> wrote:
But this is not the point.
There are predecessor of 2 in the given ordering,
but no immediate predecessor.

It's CALLED *infinity*, dumbass

This is a senseless aspect of ZFC.

No, it isn't. It has nothing whatsoever to do with ZFC.

If something has predecessors in our normal
world and understanding, in linear ordering
it must have one immediate predecessor.

The simple point here is that INFINITE sets can
have linear orderings where some element does
not have a unique immediate predecessor.
The problem with your normal world is simply
that it is not big enough to contain infinitely many
of anything big enough for you to observe. This,
again, simply has nothing whatsoever to do with ZFC.



In our world of concrete experience, we do not meet abstract
mathematical objects.

Not the issue; the issue is that the we don't meet things
with infinitely many discernible parts.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Questions on sets with infinitely many elements
    ... Just to be clear, you are responding to Albrecht there, not me. ... it must have one immediate predecessor. ... I don't dispute that a more telling point is as to infinity, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Random number question?
    ... > power to choose WHATSOEVER number from the infinite numbers. ... nothing about negative infinity to positive infinity. ... and the definition doesn't say anything about God either. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Continuum Hypothesis
    ... On 2008-04-14, in sci.math, Student of Math wrote: ... the infinity. ... On the face of it the triviality you note ... has nothing whatsoever to do with the continuum hypothesis. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Continuum Hypothesis
    ... the infinity. ... On the face of it the triviality you note ... has nothing whatsoever to do with the continuum hypothesis. ...
    (sci.math)