Re: About pii and integers
From: Keckman (keckman_at_welho.com)
Date: 09/30/04
- Next message: Keckman: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Previous message: Jose Capco: "Re: Google and new formatting in sci.math"
- Maybe in reply to: Randy Poe: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Next in thread: Virgil: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Reply: Virgil: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Reply: Randy Poe: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:16:39 +0300
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:57:21 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
> In article <opse3ralsc3uk9lu@cs81133.pp.htv.fi>,
> There is no contradiction in having an infinite set whose elements are
> all finite.
Not. Really there have not been.
But it is too simpple. Don't just read this fast bye.
Take a look at this f(n)=n. Where f(n) is a amounts n's precessor.
What happenens to the f(n) when n->oo ?
Can n->oo ? Allmost that is used everywhere in math. n->oo
If you claim that f(n)=oo then you claim too that there is n=oo.
- Next message: Keckman: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Previous message: Jose Capco: "Re: Google and new formatting in sci.math"
- Maybe in reply to: Randy Poe: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Next in thread: Virgil: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Reply: Virgil: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Reply: Randy Poe: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|