Re: infinity

In article <MPG.1d8901221431267c98a218@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> You're being deliberately dense. If I prove something true for all finite
> numbers, and you give me a set of just finite numbers, then how can you claim
> that what I proved does not apply to every element in your set? I don't need
> to
> identify any particular one as the last one. You're being silly. It is
> obvious
> that if the maximum size of the language is only infinite when there is an
> infinite maximum size for the strings in the language, and there ARE NO
> infinite strings in the language, then the language is not infinite. So, drop
> your irrelevant "largest finite" mantra. It doesn't pertain.

TO again misclaims the finiteness of the set of all finite strings.


For any finite set of two or more non-empty finite strings, any
concatenation of those strings into a single string produces a finite
string longer than any in the original set.

If TO's set of all finite strings were actually finite it would have to
contain a string longer than any string in it.
.

Quantcast