Re: An infinite debate

In article <4554d168$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

David R Tribble wrote:
Tony Orlow wrote:
Um, what if you start with 0, increment it at 1 minute before noon, then
again at a half minute before noon, then again at a third of a minute
before noon, etc, so that at time noon-1/n the number achieves a value
of n, for n in N? That way we have counted through all of the natural
numbers by noon, correct? What is the value of n at noon?

:)

An infinite number of balls, uh, finite naturals in the vase?

We are talking about the value of the nth natural, as n->oo. It's that
simple.

Does TO suggest that Lim{ n ->oo} n is a member of N?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: infinity
    ... > Tony Orlow wrote: ... >> Randy Poe said: ... >> naturals for which the size exists, the largest member is at least that large. ... >> There is no identifiable size of the set of finite naturals. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Orlow cardinality question
    ... Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote: ... >> Since there is a set of finite naturals with all the ... own admission you haven't a clue what group theory is, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... Daryl McCullough said: ... > Tony Orlow says: ... >>finite naturals, since these are the same number. ... then it is valid to say that that is the largest member of that set, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Calculus XOR Probability
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... And omega is larger than any ... member of a set of finite values. ... Omega is not a member of N. Since N contains all the finite naturals, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >> Tony Orlow wrote: ... >>> Taking the sum of all finite naturals depends on identifying the last of them ... > naturals for which the size exists, the largest member is at least that large. ... > There is no identifiable size of the set of finite naturals. ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast