Re: infinity

*** T. Winter <***.Winter@xxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <MPG.1d8247bfb0e3e29d98a1cb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> ...
> > That was a proof? All it is is a rehashed statement that there is no largest
> > finite integer. Sure, finite F can always be incremented, since finite k can
> > always be incremented. That lack of a largest element, or longest string,
> > doesn't prove infinitude of the set, as far as I'm concerned, so that doesn't
> > prove anything to me.

> How *do* you define finite and infinite?

However he defines finite, if he claims that
F = sum S^k for all finite k
is finite, then he claims that
F = S^F + (sum S^k for all finite k<>F)
and it follows that
F > S^F

Stephen
.

Quantcast