Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 03/14/05
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:49:10 -0500
Lester Zick said:
> On 13 Mar 2005 17:44:32 GMT, stephen@nomail.com in comp.ai.philosophy
> wrote:
>
> >In sci.math Allan C Cybulskie <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> [. . .]
>
> >: But I'd like to ask you to think for an instant: putting aside the example I
> >: just gave WHY can't I subtract infinity from infinity? If infinity is the
> >: same size or number, then it should be simple to do so. But if infinity is
> >: simply a number for a large amount of various sizes or numbers, then you
> >: cannot (obviously) subtract it out, but then your claim that "x + a = x" as
> >: a justification of any sort for "they have the same number of elements"
> >: cannot work.
> >
> >Why can you not divide by 0?
>
> Technically you can if you divide 0 by 0 because then L'Hospital's
> rule comes into play. But the reason you can't divide some finite
> nonzero thing by zero is because division involves repetitive
> subtraction and when you subtract 0 you aren't subtracting anything.
Look at it instead as, "how many zeroes can I fit in this finite number?", not,
"How many zeroes must I add to equal this finite number?" Then, you will see
the answer's always infinite.
>
> > The point is people have defined
> >number systems which include an "infinity".
>
> Actually not. People have defined number systems which include a
> definition for zero as the difference between a thing and itself. The
> idea of infinity is not part of any number system definition because
> it just means undefined. People just like to pretend mathematical
> definition is arbitrary when it is no such thing, as definitions of
> zero, division by zero, and definition of infinites definitely show.
The unit infinity is the multiplicative inverse of the unit infinitesimal.
>
> Regards - Lester
>
-- Smiles, Tony
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: aeo6: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|