Re: Courage?
- From: Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:00:17 +0200
On 4/10/2005 12:02 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> With the real numbers, it seems that an enumeration or well-ordering
I see the problem with the real numbers in that they are not enumerable
in so far, they are lacking any possibility of numerical representation
.. In other words, well-ordering of the reals fails not because of a
missing first element but because the real numbers are not really
numbers to enumerate. Nonetheless, I do not doubt that e.g. the solution
pi to a geometrical problem can be approached as close as possible
within the rationls.
> It's taught that that explanation is not to be used as the mechanism
> behind the analytical integral of standard classical analysis, and it's
> perhaps good that that is so, because it took a hundred years for
> textbook authors to agree on the limit or delta-epsilon.
Using this limit by Weierstrass contradicts to Cantor's definition of
the real numbers and prevents to cross the border into the continuum.
> In more
> modern times, there are some texts that are a return to the use of
> infinitesimals in the integral calculus directly.
Well, you perhaps refer to hyperreal numbers. I do not support any
numbers in excess of infinity.
Regards,
Eckard
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Courage?
- From: Matt Gutting
- Re: Courage?
- References:
- Re: Courage?
- From: Lawrence House
- Re: Courage?
- From: Ross A. Finlayson
- Re: Courage?
- Prev by Date: problem with formula
- Next by Date: Re: problem with formula
- Previous by thread: Re: Courage?
- Next by thread: Re: Courage?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|