Re: Calculus XOR Probability

Tony Orlow wrote:
Matt Gutting said:
Tony Orlow wrote:
Virgil said:
In article <MPG.1ed51edde61770d598ace4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

MoeBlee said:
Tony Orlow wrote:
There is nothing wrong with saying that, for functions f and g
and
a real number m, if f(x)>g(x) for all x>m, that f(oo)>g(oo).
You may have no trouble saying it but you might have some trouble
proving it. And what cannot be proved is mere speculation.
oo>m, hence f(x)>g(x) for all x>m -> f(oo)>g(oo). QED
QED as end of a proof from WHAT axioms and definitions?
From the two statements oo>m and forall x>m f(x)>g(x). oo is part of that set of all x>m.
Not until oo is defined, it isn't, and it is not yet defined as a natural or a real or any other object for which ">" is defined.
Sure, it's a number greater than any finite. A n e N oo>n! Duh.
That's a description of oo, but not a definition of it. For example,
it doesn't allow one to distinguish between oo, 2 * oo, and 0.5 * oo.
Since you declare these three to be distinct entities, your definition
of oo must allow you to make the distinctions.

Put E oo before it, and it's a definition of a number greater than any finite.

No, it's an assertion that the object described exists.

Matt

*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Calculus XOR Probability
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... You may have no trouble saying it but you might have some trouble ... I have specifically stated that infinite values are to be compared formulaically, and that there is no single point of infinity, but a whole spectrum of such formulaically related infinities. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Calculus XOR Probability
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... You may have no trouble saying it but you might have some trouble ... And TO has so far not shown himself capable of proving anything. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Calculus XOR Probability
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... You may have no trouble saying it but you might have some trouble ... And TO has so far not shown himself capable of proving anything. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Calculus XOR Probability
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... You may have no trouble saying it but you might have some trouble ... this is a theorem in set theory (assuming that 'oo' ... is some already defined constant symbol and that '<' is some already ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast