Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 19:32:57 -0600
In article <MPG.1d1cf7572a24b6ed989e2a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Certainly you are not sugesting that S^L as
> a measure of a set of generated strings is inappropriate for some reason in
> the
> context of sets? Does set membership allow one to make unique strings that
> have
> the same series of symbols? No. The rule still applies.
> --
I am suggesting that TO's same error applies to string length as to
natural number size. There is no finite limit to natural number size and
there is no finite limit to string lenght.
This means that both are unbounded, which cannot be the case if aleph_0
is a member of N or if any infinite string represents a natural number.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: aeo6
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- References:
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: stephen
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: aeo6
- Re: Orlow cardinality question
- From: Randy Poe
- 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
- Prev by Date: Re: Orlow cardinality question
- Next by Date: Re: Orlow cardinality question
- Previous by thread: Re: Orlow cardinality question
- Next by thread: Re: Orlow cardinality question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|