Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:56:37 -0600
In article <MPG.1d1b9b0c5dea7d6c989e09@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Who says that number of elements is the one universal measure of
> > sets? That is something you just made up. You have to define
> > "number of elements" before the question even makes sense.
> Which term do you not understand, "number" or "element"?
How do you, TO, define "number of elements" of a set?
It is not that we do not understand in general, it is that we do not
know what your understanding about that phrase is.
> > You can use induction to prove that all finite sets have a certain
> > property. You cannot use it to prove that an all infinite sets
> > have a certain property.
> Induction is supposed to prove something true for all members of the
> infinite set of naturals.
Only those members that can be generated by adding one once to some
other member. There is no provision in induction for anything other than
one-at-a-time.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: aeo6
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- References:
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: aeo6
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: stephen
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: aeo6
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: stephen
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: aeo6
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: stephen
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: aeo6
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: stephen
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- Prev by Date: Re: Google should stop archiving as it violates human rights
- Next by Date: Re: Manansala Random Number Generator
- Previous by thread: Re: Orlow cardinality question
- Next by thread: Re: Orlow cardinality question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|