Re: infinity

stephen@xxxxxxxxxx said:
> *** 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
>
What are you talking about? Oh yeah, your largest finite. Huyah huyah
Ommmmm..... Wake Up!
--
Smiles,

Tony
.

Quantcast