Re: infinity
- From: Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 16:49:23 -0400
David R Tribble said:
> Tony Orlow wrote:
> >> Now this may all sound like gobbledy-gook to you, and I don't take that
> >> personally.
> >
> David R Tribble said:
> >> You've stated many things in this thread, most of which can be
> >> summarized:
> >> d. Infinite sets can have a largest member.
> >
> Tony Orlow wrote:
> > They cartainly can, but you never argued that [0,1] was finite or lacking a
> > largest member, did you?
> >
> > You really disagree with d. ? Obviously, you folks aren't thinking that
> > clearly, but this is a foggy area for most to think about. Btter luck in the
> > future.
>
> It's obvious that I'm referring to your belief, which you've stated
> several times, that unbounded infinite sets of ordered members can
> have a largest member. Or are you now backtracking on that statement?
>
>
I never made any such statement. The word "unbounded" means that it does NOT
have a largest member. You are confusing unbounded with infinite. I never
agreed that an unbounded set had a bound. Watch your words. I agreed that
INFINITE sets can have a largest member, IF they have bounds, like [0,1]. There
is no contradiction in what I am saying, believe it or not.
--
Smiles,
Tony
.
- References:
- Re: infinity
- From: Virgil
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: David R Tribble
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: David R Tribble
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: David R Tribble
- Re: infinity
- Prev by Date: Re: infinity
- Next by Date: Re: Please help: I need to create a midi file using C language and "truncated fourier series"
- Previous by thread: Re: infinity
- Next by thread: Re: infinity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|