Re: infinity
- From: stevendaryl3016@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
- Date: 13 Oct 2005 07:18:03 -0700
Tony Orlow says...
>
>Daryl McCullough said:
>> Tony Orlow says...
>> >
>> >Randy Poe said:
>>
>> >> You define "range" in terms of "maximum value".
>> >Maximum POSSIBLE value.
>>
>> In this case, there is no maximum possible value, so
>> there is no range, according to your definition.
>There are lots of possible values
There is no *maximum* possible value.
>and they're all finite, so whatever the
>maximum is,
There *is* no maximum, so it doesn't make
any sense to talk about whether it is finite
or not.
>it's finite. To maintain that the range of values disappears
>because we can't identify a largest is silly.
No, it shows that your definition of "range" is
silly; it doesn't apply to the set of all finite
naturals.
>Do you want to pretend that there
>are no values, or differences between values, in the set?
There is no *maximum* difference between values.
>Of course the values
>have a wide range? Is it infinite? No.
By your definition, there is no range, so it
makes no sense to talk about whether it is
finite or infinite.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: infinity
- From: Ross A. Finlayson
- Re: infinity
- References:
- Re: infinity
- From: stephen
- Re: infinity
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: infinity
- From: stephen
- Re: infinity
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: infinity
- From: stephen
- Re: infinity
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: infinity
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: infinity
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: infinity
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: infinity
- Prev by Date: Re: Me and David C. Ullrich
- Next by Date: Re: Me and David C. Ullrich
- Previous by thread: Re: infinity
- Next by thread: Re: infinity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|