Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 13 Jul 2005 02:47:04 -0700
Virgil wrote:
> In article <85pstqcwtx.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > All numbers are ideas, it is just that mathematics calls more ideas
> > > numbers than WM does.
> >
> > Actually, it doesn't. The numbers that mathematics can call by name
> > (namely computable numbers) are countable. The unnamed numbers make
> > up the dark matter in the mathematicians' universe: when they gang up
> > together, they have weight and measure.
>
> Let me rephrase it:
>
> Mathematicians call a lot of things numbers that WM doesn't
, because they are not numbers, because they cannot be compared by
magnitude (at least, when compared, they do not supply a result).
Regards, WM
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Virgil
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- References:
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Jiri Lebl
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Jiri Lebl
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Jiri Lebl
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Jiri Lebl
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Virgil
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: David Kastrup
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- From: Virgil
- Re: Relative Cardinality
- Prev by Date: Re: Relative Cardinality
- Next by Date: Re: Physics... math problem -
- Previous by thread: Re: Relative Cardinality
- Next by thread: Re: Relative Cardinality
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|