Re: Logarithm of transfinite numbers

Matt Gutting said:
But for N you don't have a "set..up to any finite naturals [sic]". There's no
"up to", so you can't extrapolate the conclusion.


Tony Orlow wrote:
For every n in N you do have such a set, and it's finite. There is no n in N
for which the set has become infinite.

That is correct; there is no finite natural n in N that denotes the
size of the infinite set N.

The size of the set is larger than any finite natural in the set,
for precisely the same reason that there is no largest natural m in N.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: infinity
    ... Matt Gutting said: ... > Tony Orlow wrote: ... so the range cannot be infinite. ... Huyah huyah Ommmmm....." ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... Matt Gutting said: ... >>>Tony Orlow says... ... > According to this set of statements, 0 is neither finite nor infinite. ... >>>Daryl McCullough ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Design Patterns and Functional programming
    ... Jon Harrop wrote: ... extrapolate the claim that the ability to easily add types is (in ... When you are making an infinite claim... ... The most you can possibly claim is that in *some contexts* being able to ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: infinity
    ... > Matt Gutting said: ... >> Tony Orlow wrote: ... >>> not possible to have an infinite difference. ... The set of naturals, and the set of differences of naturals, are both ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Extrapolating linear ratios
    ... YOU CANNOT extrapolate this truth from the finite to the infinite ... THE ONLY way the cardinality of the set ... the set of all smaller naturals IS the number, ...
    (sci.logic)
Quantcast