Re: Calculus XOR Probability

imaginatorium@xxxxxxxxxxxxx said:
Tony Orlow wrote:
No, I talk more about completed actual infinities, and Han speaks more about
unboundedly large but more or less finite sets with constant relationships, but
there's not a lot of difference there, really. Brian likes to say I am talking
about the "imponderably large but finite", because I am dealing with these
infinite values similarly to finite values. So, what Han and I agree on is that
considering infinities is a lot like considering the infinite case for finite
sets, ...

OK, I'll bite. What does it mean to "consider the infinite case for
finite sets"? (I'm not entirely sure I can even parse it correctly.)


Brian Chandler
http://imaginatorium.org



Basically, all I'm saying boils down to inductive proof of equality holding for
infinite n. If some relationship between measures of a set holds for all finite
cases greater than some n, then it can be considered to hold for infinite n,
and the same applies to sets defined by that n. For instance, if the set of
naturals from 1 through n has size n, and the set size is always equal to the
largest element, then this holds for infinite n as well, leading to the notion
that this set contains infinite values when the size is infinite, and is finite
when all values are finite. Sorry if that wasn't worded well.
--
Smiles,

Tony
.