Re: An uncountable countable set

Virgil wrote:
In article <1155998568.859179.65830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Franziska Neugebauer schrieb:

You have agreed to that this limit does not exist ("There is no L in
N"). So the sum is at least _not_ _finite_ (not in omega).

There is no L, nowhere. It is wrong to say that L is in |N and it is
wrong to say that L is larger than any n e |N. Actual infinity does not
exist! I told you that already several times.

But "Mueckenh" has not been able to give us any compelling reason to believe him, and we have compelling reasons not to.

That's true! While he correctly illustrates that the infinite set of naturals cannot exist without infinite naturals, he fails to justify why this means the set is finite, and not that there exist infinite naturals.

:)

Tony
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> is an infinite set. ... >> Bob Kolker ... I asked if there are really infinite naturals between any ... a well defined bijection if and only if it has an undefined bijection ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> is an infinite set. ... >> Bob Kolker ... I asked if there are really infinite naturals between any ... a well defined bijection if and only if it has an undefined bijection ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> is an infinite set. ... >> Bob Kolker ... I asked if there are really infinite naturals between any ... a well defined bijection if and only if it has an undefined bijection ...
    (sci.physics)