Re: An uncountable countable set

imaginatorium@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
David Marcus wrote:
imaginatorium@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <45417528$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

For what it's worth, and I know this doesn't add a lot of credibility to
Ross in your eyes, coming from me, but I think Ross has a genuine
intuition that isn't far off with respect to what's controversial in
modern math. Sure, he gets repetitive and I don't agree with everything
he says, but his cryptic "Well order the reals", which I actually
haven't seen too much of lately, is a direct reference to his EF
(Equivalence Function, yes?) between the naturals and the reals in
[0,1). The reals viewed as discrete infinitesimals map to the
hypernaturals, anyway, and his EF is a special case of my IFR. So, to
answer your question, I think Ross makes some sense. But, of course,
coming from me, that probably doesn't mean much. :)
Coming from TO it damns Ross.
Even by your standards, Virgil, this is egregiously silly. TO skips the
basic exposition in Robinson's book, but finds a sentence he likes. So
this "damns" Robinson's non-standard analysis, does it?
Virgil said "Ross", not "Robinson", I believe.

Yes, of course. But Virgil's implication is that "TO says person P is
right about something" implies P is wrong. This may, contingently, be
true about Ross, but the argument could equally be applied to Robinson,
in which case the conclusion is obviously not true.

Brian Chandler
http://imaginatorium.org


And, what about those rare occasions when I agree with Virgil? Uh oh.
.

Quantcast