Re: Cantors proof

From: Dave Seaman (dseaman_at_no.such.host)
Date: 09/28/04 

Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:17:11 +0000 (UTC)

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:03:27 +0300, Keckman wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:30:13 +0000 (UTC), Dave Seaman
><dseaman@no.such.host> wrote:

>> Not from the fifth alone, but from all five axioms together. For any
>> reasonable definition of "finite" you can show that each finite subset
>> of the naturals has a largest member.

> For any reasonable definition of "finite" you should have some reasonable
> defination for "infinite".

"Infinite" simply means "not finite".

> Which come's first doesn matter. If "finite" have some meaning then
> not-"finite" should have some meaning.
> And vice versa.

So we agree that "infinite" means "not finite."

> But there is not such a thing as "infinite" except in our mind, which is
> true even for the numbers,

I thought we just agreed that "infinite" means "not finite".

> but numbers can have somekind of relations to the real world. With them we
> count or measure something.
> But infinite does not. So finite can never have a reasonable definition.

Which part of "not finite" do you not understand? 

-- 
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Orlow cardinality question
    ... > to be finite if the set of naturals up to and including it is a finite ... > set by the Cantor definition, is, by the Cantor definition, an infinite ... > member of the set. ... Even worse, I posit that the first may come after the last, and the last before ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Orlow cardinality question
    ... to be finite if the set of naturals up to and including it is a finite ... set by the Cantor definition, is, by the Cantor definition, an infinite ... Then the size of the set is not a member of the set because TO agrees ... finite objects. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Orlow cardinality question
    ... >>> proof you gave for any finite set having a maximal element. ... If the set is infinite, and has a maximal element E, then ... If an ordered set has a maximal member then appending any ... >> naturals is itself not finite, and thus need not have any maximal ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >>> infinite set with both a largest and smallest element, ... But there is an infinite sequence of finite naturals, ... >> What is the finite number that equals the range of the finite ... Why MUST it be a member of the set of differences? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Orlow cardinality question
    ... >>> be taken to check the results with infinite series. ... Any set satisfying the Peano axioms is well-ordered. ... has a last or largest member. ... There is no set of naturals with a maximum member that is not finite. ...
    (sci.math)