Re: Orlow cardinality question

Virgil said:
> In article <MPG.1d236e8c23203d15989e96@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > stephen@xxxxxxxxxx said:
>
> > > > Whatever you can say about my maximal element, I can say about
> > > > your set size. So, you might want to watch your tongue.
> > >
> > > > Remember, I don't have a problem with N+1 anyway.
> > >
> > > So then N+1 must also be a natural number according to you, and
> > > therefore N is not the maximal value. N+1 is the maximal value. No
> > > wait, N+2 is the maximal value. No, it must be N+3. It has to be
> > > there somewhere, according to your logic. Maybe it is 2N, or 3N,
> > > or N*N. Gee, do your natural numbers ever stop?
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > >
> > Uh, no, they're an infinite set, with infinite values and everything.
> > N is a standard infinity, declared as the size of the set of whole
> > numbers. There are bigger and smaller infinities.
>
> Is N a member of N?
>
> This all began with TO's claim that "finite" natural numbers has to
> somehow "stop", that we could not just keep adding one to a previous
> natural without eventually doing infinitely many such adds in one step.
> Or something like that.
> But then there has to be this great gap between the numbers produced by
> only adding one one at a time and the first of the numbers produced by
> the all-at-once method.
>
If you are talking about my "alpha", that is a purposely absurd response to
your omega, and the conveniently inconsistent rules you apply to this "value"
that make it so different from every other number. Alpha is no more ridiculous.

--
Smiles,

Tony
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Z-Infinity
    ... of an infinite set omega, I have a new type of infinite set, which I ... the properties that alpha is supposed to have. ... the Axiom of Regularity literally states that every set must be ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Z-Infinity
    ... of an infinite set omega, I have a new type of infinite set, which I ... the properties that alpha is supposed to have. ... the Axiom of Regularity literally states that every set must be ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Cantors circular "proof" that evens = integers
    ... this is an inherent property of infinite sets simply ADDS this belief as ... That's an axiom; prove otherwise Jesse! ... For an infinite set x, I can only take that to mean 2 times ... equinumerous with a proper subset of itself. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... >>> to have an infinite quantity of elements. ... that the Dedekind definition of an infinite set as one ... If you say that the collection of finite naturals ... an infinite set is defined by a recursive structure ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: random selections of integers from the infinite set of all integers
    ... I'm not sure of how your infinite set is defined, ... This will happen with probability 1. ... The result of one trial of your experiment is an infinite sequence ...
    (sci.math)