Re: Well Ordering the Reals


Tony Orlow wrote:
> David R Tribble said:
> > David R Tribble wrote:
> > >> All members of *N will map to subsets of *N. That's not the problem.
> > >> There are subsets of *N that are not mapped by any member of *N.
> > >> That's the problem.
> > Tony Orlow wrote:
> > > Oh. Can you name one, please?
> >
> > I already have, several times. You just keep ignoring them.
> >
> No you haven't. You have spooken in vague terms, claiming that N indexes the
> bits of each element in *N

What is vague about "there is one bit for every n in N"?

> when in fact you need bits with actually infinite
> bit positions to achieve the infinite values in *N.

This claim is either (a) wrong or (b) unjustified, since you haven't
defined
what you mean by this set *N. The only definition I've seen so far
is that "*N is the set of bit strings whose bits are labelled with
elements
of *N". From that I conclude that *N is the empty set, with no bits,
and that there is no need for infinite labels.

- Randy

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... David R Tribble said: ... > hyperintegers, not the reals in the unit interval. ... >> implicit infinite string of leading 0's which add no value to the sum, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Two results of set geometry
    ... David R Tribble wrote: ... All of these infinities in your spectrum must be of the "actual" ... Tony Orlow wrote: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... > David R Tribble said: ... >> Tony Orlow wrote: ... >>> possible difference is not infinite if no differences can possibly be ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... > David R Tribble said: ... >>> infinite number of bits. ... The entire bit string need not be. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Calculus XOR Probability
    ... David R Tribble said: ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... So which n is that "infinite case"? ...
    (sci.math)