Re: Am I a crank?

On 3 Sep 2006 08:08:00 -0700, "David R Tribble" <david@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Virgil wrote:
Since Zick implies above that HE can tell us how big "infinity" is, why
doesn't just he do it, or get off the pot.


Lester Zick wrote:
I already have just done it in reply to Tribble. Don't blame me if you
can't keep up with traffic.

Ah, yes, that "infinity is equal to the number of infinitesimals".

Which must be interesting, except that you haven't defined
"infinitesimal".

Just as neither of us has defined "is". You really have to do a little
thinking on your own, sport. If you can't construe the words in the
definition I'm sure a little remedial math will help. Or maybe not.

You also seem to have overlooked the fact that
infinitesimals

And what are "infinitesimals" pray tell?

don't exist in standard arithmetic, which implies,
if your definition is correct, that infinity does not exist in standard
arithmetic.

Oh well that's sure as hell the truth. I never suggested infinity
exists in finite arithmetic. I believe the original question was how
big infinity was in general terms and not in finite arithmetic terms.
I've answered that. Finite arithmetic is just a trivial subset of
mathematics and transfinite arithmetic trivializes mathematics and
mechanics by assuming the truth of everything it describes without
proof of its truth.

Perhaps you could provide us with that crucial definition?

What crucial definition exactly did you have in mind, sport?

~v~~
.

Quantcast