Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- From: Virgil <vmhjr2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 21:04:50 -0600
In article <MPG.1ec4042d806f769898acb9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mike Kelly said:
Well, only you seem to want to treat it like a number. Everyone
else knows that it isn't a regular number, it's a cardinal number.
It describes an equivalence class. You seem to have the idea of
what Aleph_0 actually is almost completely right in this post. So
why all the confusion elsewhere?
mike.
It's not confusion. It's basic disgreement with the structure of the
system and the conclusions it produces.
But there are no mathematical reasons, only TO's vaunted intuition, as
basis for his disagreement, while there are specific proofs that set
theory works the way it is advertised to work.
I get how the system works. I
disagree that it's the best we can do, or that cardinality is
anything like a good analog of size for infinite sets, and I'm trying
to offer improvements
So far all TO's suggestions have been more in the nature of disasters
than improvements.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- Next by Date: Re: Number Sorting program?
- Previous by thread: Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- Next by thread: Re: Calculus XOR Probability
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
