Re: infinity

Virgil said:
> In article <MPG.1d614a49b7368196989fe3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Guenther, I am afraid this is the kind of answer you can expect from set
> > theorists at this point. Follow your intuition. The "unintuitive" results are
> > wrong, and self-contradictory.
>
> Not anywhere nearly as wrong as the allegedly intuitive mish-mash
> proposed by TO.
>
>
> TO would require the set of naturals to contain "infinitely" large
> objects but not require the set of reals, in which the set of naturals
> is naturally embedded, to contain anything but finite objects.
>
Actually, Virgil never asked specifically about that, but as usual makes
senseless assumptions regarding TO's position, and then tries to state them
with some unearned authority. Of course the range of all quantities is
infinite, and that includes real quatities as well. If Virgil had actually
tried to remember TO's position, Virgil might have recalled that 111...111 is
the largest whole number (in binary), but that the largest countable real
number is 111...111.111...111, approximately 1 greater in quantity. He might
have recalled my revelation that this extra 1 explains the addition of 1 when
finding the negative of a number in 2's complement. Of course, one shouldn't
hold one's breath waiting for Virgil to actually pay attention, since Virgil
would much rather spout senseless drivel than actually follow the discussion.
Isn't that right, Virgil?
--
Smiles,

Tony
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantor and the binary tree
    ... WM must show how such exceptions are allowed by ... By the way it is the same with infinity ... Does Virgil ... >> There are three axioms of order for the reals. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >>> objects but not require the set of reals, in which the set of naturals ... >> Actually, Virgil never asked specifically about that, but as usual makes ... Sheer nonsense. ... > The Peano axioms prohibit any complete Peano set from having a largest. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... >>> reals as opposed to just being dense in the reals? ... >> Prove that for ever Cauchy sequence of values in your set, ... there is a least upper bound in your set. ... > Okay, Virgil. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... >>> Okay, Virgil. ... is easy to show that he could well order all the reals. ... > always define some kind of countably infinite descending sequence, ... > elements with bit strings where bits have only finite positions, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... >> unendingly increasing and unendingly decresing equences of them ... > Virgil, my well ordered set has nothing to do with the infinity-based digital ... is actually a well ordering covering all reals. ... TO has already been shown that the common ordering rules on such ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast