Re: infinity

David R Tribble said:
> Tony Orlow writes:
> >> Do you disagree with any of these assumptions?
> >
> *** T. Winter wrote:
> > There is no disagreement. The only disagreement is that you do not prove
> > that the set of finitely long numbers is not infinite, and that is what
> > you attempt to prove. But you only prove that the set of all numbers of
> > a fixed size (L) is finite.
>
> It's even more basic than that. Tony's first assumption is:
>
> >> 1. a^b and a*b are infinite ONLY with infinite a or b.
>
> Which is exactly what he is trying to prove, that there exist infinite
> natural numbers. He states that an infinite a or b exists and then
> uses that to prove that infinite numbers exist. Circular logic.
>
>
I am not trying to prove there are infinite numbers. We already have the
concept of infinite numbers from divergence in infinite series, cardinality,
and other areas. I am proving that an infinite set of unique whole numbers MUST
contain infinite values, which is nowhere in the starting assumptions of the
proof. Nice try.

Do you actually disagree with that assumption? Shall I put it like this?

1. a^b and a*b are finite for finite a and b.

It's the same logical statement, without the reference to "infinite". Are you
happy now?
--
Smiles,

Tony
.

Quantcast