Re: infinity ...
- From: Tony Orlow <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:28:18 -0500
Virgil said:
> > Albrecht Storz wrote:
> > >> My argumentation is very easy:
> > >> Every nat. number represents a set. If you look at the first 100 nat.
> > >> numbers, the 100th nat. number "100" represents the set {1, ... , 100}.
> > >> As this holds for every nat. number, if there are infinite nat. numbers
> > >> there must be a infiniteth nat. number representing this set.
>
> Albrecht is arguing that if every A is a B, then it must be the case
> that every B is also an A.
No, dumbass, he is arguing that if A=B, then if A is finite, B is finite, and
if A is infinite B is infinite, which is perfectly true, despite your whining.
>
> That every natural represents a set does not imply that every set
> represents a natural.
>
> Albrecht would fail any logic class with such a foolish claim.
But I bet he gets the girls. ;)
>
--
Smiles,
Tony
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/aeo6/WellOrder/
.
- Prev by Date: Re: infinity ...
- Next by Date: Re: does f(x ) = sin(e*x) + cos(Pi*x) have a period?
- Previous by thread: Re: infinity ...
- Next by thread: Re: infinity ...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
