Re: Calculus XOR Probability


Tony Orlow wrote:
*** T. Winter said:
In article <1144959368.304033.270220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
...
> Whoa, Tony, not so fast!

What I am wondering is the way you side on occasion with Tony. Your
argument appears to be that infinite sets are actually finite but
extremely large. I do not think that is what Tony is stating.


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.

Well, suppose you read a book on set theory in English and another one
in - oh, some remote language you happen to know, then the words will
be completely different. But it will be easy to check which
_mathematical_ terms correspond to which, simply by comparing the
definitions, which are in terms of more basic words.

Your stuff, on the other hand, invariably *relies* on the words
themselves. You have never offered a definition of "T-infinite" that is
not circular, depending only on some other term like "T-infinitesimal",
which of course is defined in terms of "T-infinite". But this has been
said hundreds of times now, and appears to be beyond you.

Brian Chandler
http://imaginatorium.org

.

Quantcast