Re: infinity

In article <MPG.1d7fdf32b4930af698a1c3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> There is no one L for all finite strings, but L for every string is finite,
> so
> S^L for every string length is finite, so sum(x=1->k: S^x) for finite k is a
> finite size of the language.

Then, for s > 1, the number of finite strings is larger that any member
of the sequence {S^L, L in N}. Since that sequence is monotonicly
strictly increasing and diverges, the "number of such strings is greater
than any finite upper bound.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... And this sequence has to be defined somehow. ... If this constraint does not hold then there are aleph-1 ... There are only countably many finite strings over a finite alphabet, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >> There is no one L for all finite strings, but L for every string is finite, ... Since that sequence is monotonicly ... Yes, it diverges, and becomes infinite, at L=oo. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >>> all lengths are finite, then none are infinite, and the language cannot be ... > The statement applies to ALL finite strings. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... the language you are working in has a finite alphabet. ... of all finite strings in the language is listable using a computable ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... If you restrict yourself to computable functions you have some ... the language you are working in has a finite alphabet. ... of all finite strings in the language is listable using a computable ...
    (sci.math)