Re: abundance of irrationals!)

Virgil said:
> In article <1115807481.625921.168650@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > *** T. Winter wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > > Interesting statement for one who did not know that these
> > entities were
> > > > > called whole numbers.
> > > >
> > > > Eh? Indeed I did not know that Cantor called them whole numbers.
> > >
> > > O, I think I now understand what you are thinking. That if you are
> > talking
> > > about primes you are talking about integers, or something like that.
> > Well,
> > > that is wrong. If you have a set of things with arithmetic rules,
> > you
> > > can talk about the primes in that set. And the things are not
> > necessarily
> > > whole numbers. Ideals are an example. Another example. Take the
> > numbers
> > > of the form (a + b.sqrt(2)) with integer a and b. That set, with the
> > > usual arithmetic, forms a ring. And in that ring you can talk about
> > > primes. And in that ring 3 is prime, but 5 is not (it can be divided
> > > by (1 + sqrt(2))), and sqrt(2) is prime.
> >
> > So what? But that the cardinal numbers can't be rationals or
> > irrationals should be clear to anybody who has only the slightest
> > knowledge of set theory.
>
> As that does not necessarily include WM, we may feel it necessary to
> make these poinst over and over again in hopes that he will finally get
> them.
> >
> > Regards, WM
>
That's funny. That was WM's statement. Idiot.
--
Smiles,

Tony
.

Quantcast