Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 15:24:19 -0500
Virgil said:
> In article <1133427464.857888.284340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> albstorz@xxxxxx wrote:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > > albstorz@xxxxxx writes:
> > >
> > > > David Kastrup wrote:
> > > >> albstorz@xxxxxx writes:
> > > >>
> > > >> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > > >> >> boink <boink@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:34:20 -0500, Tony Orlow wrote:
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> >> How did the set become infinite, if you only added a finite number
> > > >> >> >> of elements to it? if you added elements an infinite number of
> > > >> >> >> times, each one bigger than the last, how do you NOT have elements
> > > >> >> >> which are the result of an infinite number of successions, and if
> > > >> >> >> you do, how do they NOT have infinite values? If, asfter infintiely
> > > >> >> >> many steps you get an infinite set, then after infinitely many
> > > >> >> >> increments, you get an infinite value.
> > > >> >> >
> > > >> >> > that's funny, because in some sense that's exactly what happens, but
> > > >> >> > you don't get it. after omega many steps, you get the infinite
> > > >> >> > ordinal omega which is the set of all finite ordinals. and omega is
> > > >> >> > infinite and contains no infinite ordinal.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Nonsense. With that kind of logic, with aleph_1 many steps, you
> > > >> >> get the infinite ordinal omega_1, but there is no such thing.
> > > >> >> Steps don't get you omega. Omega is an _inexhaustible_ supply of
> > > >> >> sequential steps. Either you have it, or you don't. If you don't,
> > > >> >> you can't put it together using finite steps. A sentence like "you
> > > >> >> get omega, if you just exhaust an inexhaustible supply of finite
> > > >> >> steps..." does not make sense.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It's really funny. You have infinitely many natural numbers but you
> > > >> > have not infinitely many steps (or you have it but you can't supply
> > > >> > the natural numbers with it).
> > > >>
> > > >> You have an inexhaustible supply of steps. Since it is inexhaustible,
> > > >> you can't perform "all of those".
> > > >
> > > > This must hold in the exact same manner for the inexhaustible supply of
> > > > natural numbers. Since it's inexhaustible you can't have all of
> > > > those.
> > >
> > > Not one by one. Only as a supply. And N is exactly that.
> >
> > If N is a supply, its extent is exact this what is usually called
> > potential infinity.
> Then we only have a potential one and a potential two , etc., as these
> have no more actuality than N does.
>
> > > This is not problematic: _all_ mathematical entities exist by virtue
> > > of their definition and their properties.
> > >
> >
> > That's arrogance. The natural numbers don't exist since you or someone
> > else define them. The natural numbers exist, since men exists. 100.000
> > years ago, nobody had defined N.
> > Not math creates N. N creates math!
>
> Mankind creates both!
>
> Or does Storz wish to reserve that right of creativity to God?
Kronecker seemed to think that way. God creates N and man creates math out of
N. That was his perspective.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Albrecht Storz
>
--
Smiles,
Tony
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/aeo6/WellOrder/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Virgil
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- References:
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: albstorz
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Virgil
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Prev by Date: Re: product topology
- Next by Date: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Previous by thread: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Next by thread: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|