Re: abundance of irrationals!)

Robert Kolker said:
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> > Well, by everyone's need to make the naturals a set of finite numbers, and my
> > claim that that means it's a finite set, then you should be satisfied with a
> > finite set of finite natural numbers.
>
> That means there is a largest integer. Now add one to it. What do you
> get? A contradiction.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
Yes Bob I've heard that before about a million times. It's like a mantra around
here. You tell me. Is there a largest finite?

Perhaps an axiom says that a finite set MUST have a greatest member. Perhaps
that is why we INSIST that N is infinite, even though we don't want to deal
with infinite values, because we cannot find an overall largest finite number.
Sure, that's a problem, but do we need the axiom for largest member? What does
that really do for us that we can't do another way that's better?

By the way, Hi Bob!
--
Smiles,

Tony
.

Quantcast