Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:06:55 +0100
On 12/1/2006 9:35 PM, Virgil wrote:
In article <1164982199.959381.134510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Eckard Blumschein schrieb:
I recall being a little boy wondering when I was told that while thereNo, I am sorry, I do not. The continuum is nothing but our failure to
is no evidence proving the existence of god there is also no evidence
showing his non-existence. Are those crippled who don't believer in CH?
I consider the background of CH given in the difference between number
and continuum. This might be crippled down to the truth? Do you agree?
look closely enough. In physics it lasted 2000 years to settle the idea
of the atom and to supplement and complete it by the uncertainty
relations. The majority of matematicians is not yet far sighted enough
to recognize the same situation in their realm.
We do not yet /know/ that the physical universe is not continuous, so
why should we reject a mathematically continuous real number system?
I do not just agree. I would even like to stress once again that the
mathematical concepts of continuum is independent from its application.
What about continuous real numbers, I only vote for a little bit more
honesty and more consequent reasoning. If irrational numbers are thought
to complete the rationals which sounds quite logical, then the
constituted entity of the reals has to be as fictitious as the
irrationals. The name real "numbers" is misleading due to lacking
trichotomy in this case. Nonetheless, one may largely operate with the
real "numbers" AS IF they were actually numbers. Likewise oo ist often
treated like a number while oo + a = oo obviously violates the ordinary
rules.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Right cosets intersection
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|