Re: Relative Cardinality

In article <1120676447.187383.125600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Randy Poe wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Real sets can never be infinite. That is undisputed.
> >
> > Consider it disputed, until you define "real sets".
>
> Real sets consist of elements which exist in space and time - or are
> you a solipsist?

Then nothing of mathematics is real as none of it "exists" in space or
time.
> >
> > I consider the set of natural numbers to be real and
> > infinite. I consider the set of numbers in [0,1] to
> > be real and infinite. I consider the set of possible
> > velocity vectors of a 1954 Buick Sedan to be real and
> > infinite.
>
> They all are neither real nor infinite. But the latter is in fact
> disputed frequently - as yet.

If they are not real in WM's sense, there can be no objection to their
being infinite.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Relative Cardinality
    ... Randy Poe wrote: ... >> Real sets can never be infinite. ... until you define "real sets". ... > velocity vectors of a 1954 Buick Sedan to be real and ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
    ... Randy Poe said: ... Do any of your naturals achieve any infinite values? ... or the value of the string I am discussing. ... They ARE the finite naturals. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... > Randy Poe said: ... > Only for infinite sets, ... But of any mapping TO fails to find, ... So there is a well-defined set in every such power set, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: TOE Via Cantors Transfinite Arithmetic
    ... > Randy Poe said: ... >>There are many properties of infinite sets that are ... > by persisting) and people who persist in denying statements about ... > courses) is taught in third year mathematics at the latest. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: infinity
    ... > Tony Orlow wrote: ... >> Randy Poe said: ... Proof by faith. ... > infinite elements. ...
    (sci.math)