Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: stephen@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:13:13 +0000 (UTC)
Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> stephen@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> So you believe in a largest natural number then? After all
>> each P_n has a largest value, and there is "no point where all
>> of a sudden finitary properties would cease to exist". So
>> what is the name of your largest natural number?
> 1. I don't know.
> 2. I don't care.
> 3. I'll make it larger.
> Han de Bruijn
Ah, the infamous "I don't know and I don't care" when
confronted with a logical conclusion of your own
argument for which you do not care.
In any case, your natural numbers are clearly not
the one's described by Peano's axioms. As you
refuse to define your natural numbers, it is
impossible to know if there is any sense to your
arguments.
Stephen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- References:
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: cbrown
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: stephen
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Prev by Date: Re: Summation, modulo and decimal
- Next by Date: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Next by thread: Re: Cantorian pseudomathematics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|