Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 01:35:42 -0600
In article <11006$4538774e$82a1e228$25512@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
MoeBlee wrote:
Han de Bruijn wrote:
MoeBlee wrote:
All cardinals are ordinals (while not all ordinals are cardinals). The
set of natural numbers is the set of finite ordinals which is the set
of finite cardinals. This is standard set theory.
Ah! Therefore we can limit ourselves to the naturals and forget all the
fuzz about ordinals and cardinals. Because the infinite counterparts of
these beasties do not exist in _my_ universe anyway.
Do what you want in _your_ universe. Meanwhile, if you ever get around
to formulating a mathematical theory, do let us know.
I've formulated more than one, _without_ set theory.
Lets see what assumptions it requires. If it requires the consent of
physics, it is worthless to anyone but physicists.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- References:
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: David Marcus
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
- Prev by Date: Re: hypotenuse comic?
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Previous by thread: Re: An uncountable countable set
- Next by thread: Re: An uncountable countable set
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|