Re: infinity

stephen@xxxxxxxxxx said:
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > stephen@xxxxxxxxxx said:
> >> I do not think that matters. Suppose that
> >> F = sum S^k for all not imponderably enormous k
> >> and that F is not imponderably enormous.
> >>
> >> Then
> >> F = F + (sum S^k for all not imponderably enormous k <> F)
> >>
> >> Presumably if F is not imponderably enormous than we can
> >> safely substract it from both sides. So
> >> 0 = (sum S^k for all not imponderably enormous k <> F)
> >>
> >> Well 1,2,3, etc are all not imponderably enormous, and
> >> S^1 + S^2 + S^3 > 0
> >> for S>0.
> >>
> >> Tony is basically claiming that "finite" numbers exist
> >> that are greater than the sum of all "finite" numbers,
> >> including themselves. This is going to be problematic
> >> for whatever definition of "finite" you plug in.
> >>
> >> Stephen
> >>
> > I am claiming no such thing. You are the one supposing a largest finite in your
> > stuff above, hence the contradiction. I never claimed to have any number for
> > the sum of all finite numbers.
>
> You claimed that the sum of all finite numbers was finite.
> Is the sum of all finite numbers somehow finite, but it is
> not a number? With you I suppose anything is possible.
>
> Stephen
>
Is the largest finite finite, but not a number? Answer your own questions for
once. I have already shown that the largest finite natural and the size of the
set of finite naturals are one and the same number. Does one exist while the
other doesn't?
--
Smiles,

Tony
.

Quantcast