Re: infinity
- From: Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:28:39 -0600
In article <MPG.1d76ad0ae099937898a179@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If you are required to have infinite strings in an infinite set of
> strings from a finite alphabet, then any infinite set of normal
> digital numbers must have infinitely long strings
But one is not requred to have infinitely long strings, only
arbitrarily, but finitely long strings.
If there is no finite limit on the length of a string, one can have
infinitely many of them without having any one of them infinitey large.
Once one has infinitely long strings with more that one character in the
allowed alphabet, one has potentially uncountably many strings.
.
- References:
- Re: infinity
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: David R Tribble
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: David R Tribble
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: Nathan
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: Virgil
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: Virgil
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: David R Tribble
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- Prev by Date: Re: Han's startling new set theory.
- Next by Date: Re: Cardinality of Real Numbers
- Previous by thread: Re: infinity
- Next by thread: Re: infinity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|