Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:32:10 -0700
In article <1163252852.669083.310910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Franziska Neugebauer schrieb:
David Marcus wrote:
[...] you are working with an infinite triangle [...]
,----[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle ]
| A triangle is one of the basic shapes of geometry: a polygon with
| three vertices [...]
`----
Are there really three vertices in WM's "triangle"?
If finished infinities like omega do exist, yes. Then you can add 1
term to the first (and any other) column and one term to the diagonal
obtaining tree vertices:
1
22
333
...
omega...omega
Addition of one term to every line, however, will not yield anything.
Since when do sets have a length?
It can be defined: length of a set of natural numbers = cardinal number
of that set.
Regards, WM
Why is it not the height (or width, or area or volumn, or any other word
indicating quantity) of the set rather than its "length"
.
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Daniel Grubb
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Franziska Neugebauer
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by Date: Re: Math as Religion
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|