Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers


Tony Orlow wrote:
Randy Poe said:

Tony Orlow wrote:
Randy Poe said:

Tony Orlow wrote:
Randy Poe said:
I think you mean all the finite substrings have a finite
value, but none of those is the string with a 1 in every
odd position.

If all those 1 bits are in finite positions, then each one has a finite value,
and is greater than the sum of the string to the right of it.

Yes, each of those substrings has a finite value.

None of those is the entire string.

TO logic:

1. Here I have a collection of things which all have
property P.

2. Here I have an object which we all agree is
not a member of the collection.

3. Therefore I conclude my object has property P.

How does not being a member of a collection lead you
to conclude that it has a property of things in the
collection? Why do you think 2 implies 3?

- Randy



Dear god, Randy, haven't I been through this with you enough already?

Is it your theory that there exists M such that M
repetitions will change it from wrong to right?

There is no such M.

Why do
you have to paint my logic to be so flakey?

Gee, I dunno, maybe because... it is so flakey.

I'm PRESENTING your logic unaltered. All I did was abstract
it.

If you start at 1 and go through the inductive set incrementally, at each
point, your max value n IS the size of the set,

And none of those sets is N.

and sits in position n. Every
time you add the next value, the max increments, and the set size increments,
in tandem, so there is no point at which one is ever going to surpass the
other, and no point where the set size will become infinite,

and no point at which one of these sets is N.

but there is no
infinite value in the set. It's that simple.

Right. Therefore, since at no time in this process are you
ever dealing with N, it is fallacious to conclude that you
have ever examined a property of N. You have examined
a sequence of proper subsets, which you agree are not
N, will never be N.

You sure are dense on this one, Randy.

Hint: My unwillingness to agree with your gobbledegook
version of "logic" has nothing to do with denseness.

I have established a property of the
elements of the set, all of them,

"1. Here I have a collection of things which all have
property P".

that none of them marks any point where the
set acheives infinity.

Right. No set of the form {1,...,n} is the set N of
interest. The "collection of things" is the sets of the
form {1,...,n} and we all agree that N is none of these,
i.e., that

"2. Here I have an object which we all agree is
not a member of the collection."

Right? Do we agree that N is not one of the set of
the form {1,...,n}?



This is a property of every element in the set. For each
and every one of them, the set up to that point is finite.

Yes. That's #1. Every member of the collection has that
property. But remember #2: N is not in the collection.

All of your arguments go around and around this kind
of logic. Over and over you discuss the properties
of the collection, over and over you agree N is not
in the collection, and then over and over you do
this.

"3. Therefore I conclude my object has property P."

N is not in the collection. It doesn't matter that
every element of n can be used to form a set of
the form {1,...,n}. When you form that collection of
sets, you have a collection which DOES NOT
INCLUDE N, AND WE ALL AGREE ON THAT.

Nevertheless, you think N shares a property with
every member of a collection OF WHICH WE ALL
AGREE IT IS NOT A MEMBER.

Despite your belief that some axiom or other ought
to get you there, there isn't. N is not a member of
the collection whose properties you insist on
focusing on.

Yes, and you say there are an infinite number of successors to any natural, but
no natural is the infinite successor to any other natural.

Both of those are correct.

Doesn't that seem somewhat contradictory to you?

No, since it's so trivially easy to get one's intuition
around both of them.

It does to me.

Your inability to understand does not mean the concepts
are incomprehensible. It is something lacking in your
own brain.

- Randy

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... > Tony Orlow wrote: ... >> For comparing sets formulaically, when they cannot be directly measured due to ... > every member of a set B, ... > whether the sets are finite or infinite, because it works for all sets. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... and is greater than the sum of the string to the right of it. ... How does not being a member of a collection lead you ... infinite value in the set. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... Can all 1's up to any finite position represent an infinite ... There is no infinite position in the string. ... And no sum ending at M represents the sum over the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... Can all 1's up to any finite position represent an infinite ... There is no infinite position in the string. ... And no sum ending at M represents the sum over the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... positions in the string, it can never achieve any infinite value at any ... very useful model for the entire set of naturals. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading