Re: Well Ordering the Reals

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:42:07 -0500, Tony Orlow wrote:


> How is this proof different than the inductive proof of the finiteness of the
> values of the natural numbers?

How does what you just said contradict what I said?

Any finite set of finite numbers is finite. (Duh.)

The set of _all_ finite numbers is infinite.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Orlow cardinality question
    ... >> Virgil said: ... Your injections don't prove to me that a set is infinite or finite. ... series, information science, and inductive proof all agree otherwise. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... >>> offer about two infinite series apply only to series both of which converge. ... > No. Standard induction is defined to apply to *every element of* the entire set ... >> have an inductive proof of some kind of inequality based on a difference which ... >> course the inductive proof that the naturals are all finite is based on an ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... For finite or infinite sets S,and finite von Neumann sets, ... Inductive proof implies truth "for every finite n". ... This is not the case for sets containing the finite naturals and any ... > such ideas from within set theory as proper subsets which are always smaller. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Infinite Induction and the Limits of Curves
    ... It has been my position that the method of inductive proof is valid, ... for all finite natural n, but for the infinite case as well, given certain ... The rationals are equinumerous with the irrationals. ... in T_oo equals the number of elements in S_oo QED ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... Please respond to my inductive proof of this, ... The claim "S is infinite" is mathematically equivalent to ... forall n s.t. n is a finite natural, ...
    (sci.math)