Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:04:55 -0700
In article <MPG.1df655693cbb062698a78a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > That's precisely what's being requested of you, as I understand it.
> Yes, and that's why I coined Bigulosity, and the T-riffic numbers (as
> infinite
> naturals and reals). But, "infinite" is a common word, and not owned by set
> theory.
Within set theory, the meaning of 'infinite' is whatever set theorists
as a whole agree that it is. In that context, they DO own it.
TO may not have noticed that mathematicians often use common words in
uncommon ways, rather than inventing entirely new words. This is
possible because these meanings are thos appropriate to the contexts in
which the words appear. This is quite common outside of mathematics,
too, that the meaning of words depends on the context in which they
appear.
.
- References:
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Sean West
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: David R Tribble
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: David R Tribble
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: David R Tribble
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: David R Tribble
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Matt Gutting
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Prev by Date: Re: computing geodesics, geodesic distance algorithms
- Next by Date: Re: Is driving time or average velocity normally distributed?
- Previous by thread: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Next by thread: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading