Re: infinity

William Hughes said:
>
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> > David Kastrup said:
> > > Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > > If you want to think of it that way, I suppose you can, even though
> > > > there is no point at which you are taking away more balls than you
> > > > put in. While set theorists claim that order is irrelevant within a
> > > > set,
> > >
> > > For determining the cardinality of a set the order is irrelevant. It
> > > turns out that the cardinality of the set of balls put into the vase
> > > and the cardinality of the set of balls taken out again are the same.
> > And yet, as Cantorians have admitted in the past, cardinality of infinite sets
> > is not the same as set size.
> >
> > > What does this mean? That there is _one_ way of mapping the balls
> > > taken in and taken out 1:1. But since this cardinality happens to be
> > > infinite, and infinite sets can be mapped to a proper subset of
> > > themselves, this does not mean that there might not also be a mapping
> > > 1:10. So the question "do balls remain, and how many?" can't be
> > > answered by looking just at the set sizes, because the sets are
> > > infinite. Instead one has to take a look at every ball individually
> > > and has to check whether it will be put in, but not removed. Because
> > > we are talking about infinite sets, and the pigeon hole principle is
> > > no longer valid.
> > So, you look to see if you can ever remove the last ball. When you have just
> > added 10 balls, removing 1 ball will never result in an empty set. Isn't that
> > true?
>
> This is true, but you only add 10 balls at a finite step. No, you
> never get the empty set at any finite step. No one disputes this.
You never get an empty set at ANY step. At EACH step, when you remove 1 ball,
you have just added 10 balls. Unless, of course, you are saying that at
infinite steps you are following a different procedure, but that was never
stated. So, you can NEVER, at any finite OR infinite step, have an empty set.
>
> > >
> > > > here they are arguing that there is a difference between whether the
> > > > one ball removed is labeled one way or another. If we add 10x
> > > > through 10x+9 (for x=0 to N) and then remove 10x, then 10x+1 through
> > > > 10x+9 are NEVER removed. However, if you say you are adding 10x
> > > > through 10x+9, and taking away x+1, then you claim that you remove
> > > > all elements. There is a serious inconsistency here between claiming
> > > > that order doesn't matter for sets in general, and then claiming
> > > > that here it does. What difference does the label on the removed
> > > > ball really make?
> > >
> > > Without "labels" or other identifying features, you can't decide
> > > whether a given ball, once put in, is taken out again at some time.
> > It doesn't matter about any particular ball. Whenever you remove a ball, you
> > have just added 10, so the vase can't be empty. QED
>
> But you only remove a ball af a finite step. So you have just
> concluded that the base is not empty at any finite step.
Then you never remove balls at an infinite step? How can it ever become empty
then? Do you also stop adding balls at infinite steps? It sounds like infinite
steps don't even exist, but that seems like par for the course with the current
misunderstanding of infinity.
> >
> > > Since it is feasible to remove just a subset (we are talking about
> > > infinite sets here), there is no way except checking the balls. I
> > > could equally well forget ball 0 and start the removal action with
> > > ball 1. In that case, at the end ball 0 will be left. I could remove
> > > just the odd-numbered balls, in which case the even-numbered balls
> > > will be left. And so on.
> > So, the same operation results in entirely different numbers of remaining
> > balls, depending on the labels on the balls? This is sheer nonsense.
> >
> > >
> > > > The solution to the problem lies in forgetting about your
> > > > bijections, and noting that at each of an infinite number of steps
> > > > you are adding a net 9 balls to the vase,
> > >
> > > Oh, but counting to 9 is all about bijections.
> > It's about counting. What purpose is this statement supposed to serve?
> > >
> > > > and the overall number never decreases from one step to the next.
> > > > You see, it's not that I am missing anything, but simply noting that
> > > > your system produces contradictory results, none of which make very
> > > > good sense.
> > >
> > > Once you realize that an infinite set can be mapped 1:1 to a proper
> > > subset of itself, it becomes clear that at the "end of the process",
> > > we can no longer rely on the pigeon hole principle: the number of
> > > things put in and taken out alone does not suffice for determining
> > > anything (well, it is sufficient for determining that the remaining
> > > number of balls must be countable, but that is not really impressive).
> > When every removal is accompanied by a larger addition, the vase will never be
> > empty, but continually more full. Does the infinite series (10,-1,10,-1,10....)
> > converge to zero? Do the terms have a limit of zero? No, sorry.
>
> Does the problem have anything to do with infinite series. No sorry.
Sorry, but the problem has EXACTLY to do with a sum of an infinite series of
terms, which is what infinite series IS. Otherwise, what do you think infinite
series are all about? Do you, or do you not, add 10, then remove 1, as
described above, an infinite number of times? Are you not summing an infinite
number of terms, and if so, don't the rules regarding infinite series apply? Of
course they do, and needing to deny that fact demonstrates the extent to which
the theory of transfinite sets is at odds with all other math. Sorry.
>
>
> -William Hughes
>
>

--
Smiles,

Tony
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: infinity
    ... >>>You never get an empty set at ANY step. ... >> Which balls are in the vase at state E. ... >> the vase at any finite step. ... So, you can NEVER, at any finite OR infinite step, have an empty set. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >>> And yet, as Cantorians have admitted in the past, cardinality of infinite sets ... >> never get the empty set at any finite step. ... Which balls are in the vase at state E. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >>> never get the empty set at any finite step. ... > Which balls are in the vase at state E. ... > the vase at any finite step. ... A larger infinity than the infinite number that have been ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: INFINITY Revisited
    ... Are you then saying that by noon an infinite number of balls have been ... I believe it follows that balls with an infinite number of digits must ... nonterminating decimals. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >> You seem to have pulled the infinite series ... > there are nine more balls in the vase that there were at the end of the ...
    (sci.math)