Re: Orlow cardinality question

Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> imaginatorium@xxxxxxxxxxxxx said:
> > Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> > > Eat me, Jiri. There is nothing in standard math that will suffer from infinite
> > > numbers, except your own delusions.
> >
> > An authoritative-sounding statement. Well, actually, group theory (and
> > the rest of algebra) would be in fairly significant trouble if your
> > version of things were correct. But despite your pompous tone, by your
> > own admission you haven't a clue what group theory is, which makes it
> > strange you can be so confident.
> >
> > I mean, do the Tints form a cyclic group under addition? And do the
> > finite Tints form a, er, what, "fuzzy subgroup", perhaps???
> >
> > Brian Chandler
> > http://imaginatorium.org
> >
> >
> I am not up on group theory. Maybe one of these days. But I think the Tints ARE
> a cyclic group, at least in one sense. There is more than one way to view the
> numbers. The successor of 999...999 can be thought of as 000...000 in a sense,
> or one can include the carry and make it 000...001:000...000.

Not many people are likely to be interested in whether you think (given
that you haven't a clue what group theory is) that something is a
cyclic group "in one sense".

And when Peano's axioms (or mathematics in general) talks about
something existing, it means it exists, once, definitely - none of this
weaselling, and "ways to view things". Either every natural in your
system has exactly one successor, or not. If so, it meets this
particular Peano axiom. Note that another Peano axiom is that zero is
not the successor of any natural number; if your system makes zero the
successor of a natural, then it doesn't meet Peano's axioms.

Plainly you are spewing out too much random blather at the moment to
achieve anything. But if you would once and for all explain whether you
think you are describing the natural numbers of normal mathematics or
inventing something of your own.

Brian Chandler
http://imaginatorium.org

.