Re: Galileo's Paradox

In article <456D7417.30000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 11/28/2006 10:40 PM, Virgil wrote:
Eckard Blumschein wrote:

The relations smaller, equally large, and larger are invalid for
infinite quantities.


All one needs do is divorce the "length" from the "number of points",
which is probably what Galileo did, as being different sorts of measures
(like weight versus volume), and the problem disappears.

No. Infinite quantities include e.g. an infinite amount of points.
Infinite means: The process of quantification has not been finished or
cannot be finished at all.

That may be your personal definition of infiniteness, but is not
everyones, and does not govern anyone but yourself.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... infinite quantities. ... measure with count in the infinite is the task here, ... subsets of the reals, and their quantities need not correlate. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... Eckard Blumschein wrote: ... No. Infinite quantities include e.g. an infinite amount of points. ... are NEVER mathematicians? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Hardy-Weinberg law
    ... >> You cannot simply talk about ratios between two infinite quantities. ... *unless* you specify a sampling strategy. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... >>> An infinite number of them, ... chickens in the box is n. ... This definition is not circular. ... and infinite sets in terms of infinite quantities. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... (like weight versus volume), and the problem disappears. ... No. Infinite quantities include e.g. an infinite amount of points. ...
    (sci.math)