Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:37:53 -0700
In article <MPG.1debc0271de284ce98a732@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Daryl McCullough said:
> > How are you proposing to modify the axiom of infinity?
> Well, you said it was stupid, but my suggesting is start with 1 so
> the set size is always a member of the set, and not larger than
> everything in the set. Then, given the nature of the naturals, the
> infinite set must include infinite values, and the set of finite
> values must be finite.
So TO again argues that ({0} union N) is infinite but N is finite.
And TO wonders why so many think him an ass.
.
- References:
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Prev by Date: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Next by Date: FLT an incurable, unending addiction
- Previous by thread: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Next by thread: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading