Re: Relative Cardinality


mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Proginoskes wrote:
> > Jiri Lebl wrote:
> > > mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > But that doe not imply a largest number and it does not imply that the
> > > > numbers in the set of 10^100 numbers remain always the same.
> >
> > But if you take today's set of numbers that contains 10^100 numbers and
> > take the union of tomorrow's set of numbers that contains 10^100
> > numbers, you cannot end up with a bigger set, so the universe of
> > numbers _must_ remain the same.
>
> You cannot take what not exists. If you want to realize tomorrow's set,

There is a difference between numbers existing and being realized. If 2
and 3 are in the Muecken set, and each of these numbers requires the
whole universe to be realized, then they both exist but can't both be
realized.

> but all storage space is used up by today's set, then you have the
> choice either to clear some space or to leave it as it is. This sounds
> somewhat ridiculous with regard to the huge amount of memory space
> available.

It may be huge, but it's still finite. (You think too small.)

(As the saying goes: Theoretical computer scientists will never
consider working with a machine that can fit on a single planet.)

> But think back only 200 years. It would have been ridiculed
> if someone had warned that human activity could change the climate or
> cause environmental pollution.
>
> > The consequences boggle the mind.
>
> So it is.

This response, being grammatically inconsistent, sounds so W-ish.*

--- Christopher Heckman

> > > [snip]

* As in George W. Bush, that is.

.

Quantcast