Re: Orlow cardinality question

Virgil said:
> In article <MPG.1d1ccb0af4b7d541989e1b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Virgil said:
> > > 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.
> > How about the integral of the density over the domain? Does that satisfy your
> > need for mathematical definition?
>
> No. There is no guarantee that any such "integral" exists. there is
> ceratinly no real valued function representing density at each real
> number of any interval.
>
Your declarations do not make it so.
--
Smiles,

Tony
.

Quantcast