Re: Well Ordering the Reals

Tony Orlow wrote:
Ack! If you start with 0, then the number of elements in the set is always GREATER than the largest value, as you add successors. If you start with 1 as your first natural, the number of elements is always EQUAL to the largest element, and therefore never becomes infinite as long as the elements themselves are finite. 

So you're saying that the set {0,1,2,...} is infinite, but the
set {1,2,3,...} isn't. Doesn't this strike you as a little
odd?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... Doesn't this strike you as a little odd? ... elements of the set at any given step, and when you consider the set of all finite naturals, you say the size is larger than all finite naturals, so it must be infinite. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... Doesn't this strike you as a little odd? ... elements of the set at any given step, and when you consider the set of all finite naturals, you say the size is larger than all finite naturals, so it must be infinite. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Am I a crank?
    ... A mathematical definition is a stipulation that a ... Even though there is no such thing as an even odd, however, ... It is false as it contradicts itself. ... the cutest little mathematician!'" -- Daryl McCullough on Tony Orlow. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... > Randy Poe said: ... >> Tony Orlow wrote: ... >>> So then, you agree that after an infinite number of successors, ... an infinite number of successors". ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Can I insert predecessor tasks as ranges in the Gantt Chart view of MSProject 2003 pro?
    ... No to both questions:(Are there no other successors to the 40 odd ... Have they no other linkk? ... > I have a final milestone task of zero duration that is the successor ...
    (microsoft.public.project)
Loading