Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
- From: "David R Tribble" <david@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 24 Mar 2006 11:31:58 -0800
Tony Orlow wrote:
Listen, Dude. You ain't got no element you added to your set where it ever got
infinite, Pardner! I'm a startin' ta think yer set o' naturals ain't even big
as Texas.
Matt Gutting said:
No, it doesn't "get" infinite. It starts out infinite, by the axiom of induction.
Tony Orlow wrote:
What is the underlying justification for the axiom of induction? Please!
Axioms don't need any justification. They only need consistency with
the other axioms in the system.
And speaking as a Texan, yes, Texas is quite big, but it takes less
than 80 bits to number every molecule in the state. Compare that
to the 2^1100 or so bits needed to denumerate all the naturals up to
a googleplex. And compare _that_ to all the naturals countable with
a googleplex bits. Yet we're still a long way from exhausting the
naturals, of course, which requires a set size larger than any natural.
.
- References:
- Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
- From: Virgil
- Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
- Prev by Date: Re: like a definition question about sub-algebra
- Next by Date: Re: analytic function question
- Previous by thread: Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
- Next by thread: Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|