Re: infinity

Tony Orlow wrote:
>> For any finite value you choose, you can find a larger finite value, which
>> is still finite, so being larger than any finite value you can choose does
>> not make a number infinite.
>

(I think Tony worded his sentence poorly. His "larger than any finite
value you choose" means "larger than any specific finite value you
choose", not "larger than all finite values".)

That's right; for any finite natural I choose, I can always find
another finite natural that is larger than it. And this does not
make the larger number infinite. So the set of finite naturals does
not contain any infinite values.

So how then, Tony, do you get infinite numbers in your set of naturals?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... > Tony Orlow wrote: ... and therefore never becomes infinite as long as the elements ... >> finite naturals, you say the size is larger than all finite naturals, so it ... > Did those infinite members of N disappear when you removed the 1? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... The conclusion is either the finite naturals do not ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... > finite, then there is no possible infinite difference, and no infinite range. ... You like visuals, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... Tony Orlow writes: ... > Daryl McCullough said: ... the set is unbounded but not infinite. ... >> What is the size of the set of all finite naturals? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >> Tony Orlow wrote: ... >> David R Tribble said: ... consequence of the successor function on the set of finite naturals. ... > The number of infinite naturals is ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... > Tony Orlow wrote: ... and therefore never becomes infinite as long as the elements ... No, I am saying that, when you start with 0, the size is larger than all ... finite naturals, you say the size is larger than all finite naturals, so it ...
    (sci.math)