Re: infinity

In article <MPG.1db4478c83a297798a43d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> stephen@xxxxxxxxxx said:
> > Tony Orlow <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > But it is not greater than ALL finite numbers. It is a finite
> > > number that is greater than any you could name. It is still a
> > > finite number in the set of finite numbers. For every finite you
> > > pick, you can always find a larger finite. The largest finite
> > > would have to be larger than all other finites. It cannot be
> > > indentified. Does this make it infinite? Only in Virgilogic.

TO, as usual, tries to create a straw man to fight, since he cannot
refute the actuality, that no such thing as his "value range" can exist
for the set Peano Naturals.

> >
> > It makes it non-existent. If it does not exist, it is not finite,
> > nor is it infinite, or prime, or odd or even. That is according to
> > standard logic.


> This is so Berkeley-esque it makes me kind of ill. "Maybe there IS no
> tree. Maybe science is just an illusion." What a bunch of last-ditch
> nonsense. "There IS no range, even though there are values that are
> different from each other. Since we can't put a number on it, it
> doesn't exist,

Exactly! According to TO's definition, a "value range" IS a number. SO
that if we cannot put a number on it, no such NUMBER exists and the
"value range" number does not exist.


> >
> > Once again Tony repeats his mantra that there is a largest finite
> > number. Why don't you just admit that there actually is a
> > largest finite number? You clearly believe that there is one.
> > From that point you can either decide that, if X is the largest
> > finite then, X+1 does not exist, or X+1 is infinite, or X+1 = X,
> > or X+1 = 0, or X+1 = -X, or whatever else you think makes sense.
> > The last two seem right up your alley.

> Straw Man.

It is TO who keeps doing the straw man thing. When we prove that a
certain "value range" number does not exist, TO claims that we claim
that it is infinite, which we do not. That is TO misrepresenting our
position, which is TO doing the straw man thing.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: infinity
    ... The generation of the naturals involves an increment of 1 for ... >> infinite number of elements, one for each iteration, with an increment, ... and here we find the Straw Man. ... The axiomatic method is what conveniently shields you from having to think ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... That is where we differ. ... we apply the word "infinite" to it. ... >> Yours is the straw man argument. ... If x is infinitesimal (non-zero), ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >> That's because your countable infinities are actually unbounded finite sets. ... The generation of the naturals involves an increment of 1 for ... > infinite number of elements, one for each iteration, with an increment, ... and here we find the Straw Man. ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast