Re: infinity

In article <1125607344.916798.69930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "snapdragon31" <snapdragon31@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
....
> > > Finitely long numbers simply have all zeroes for i<x and i>y where y-x
> > > is finite.
> > >
> > > Do you disagree with any of these assumptions?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> Just a comment on the above paragraph.
> At first I thought that the first statement is redundant.

Yup, I should have said: "There is no disagreement with this assumption".
The disagreement is elsewhere.

> Then I look further.
> 'not infinite' should be equivalent to 'finite' and
> 'number of a fixed size' should be equivalent to 'finitely long
> numbers'

In what way should "numbers of a fixed size" be equivalent to "finitely long
numbers"?

> If 'the set of all numbers of a fixed size (L) is finite' is true
> then 'the set of finitely long numbers is not infinite' is also true.

Yes, that is what Tony states, without proof. You do the same, also
without proof.
--
*** t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~***/
.

Quantcast