Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:19:23 +0100
On 12/5/2006 12:39 AM, Virgil wrote:
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.
And the rationals and the naturals and all other mathematical
constructions.
No. No. No. I do not have a more apt word than fictitious in the sense
it was used by Leibniz in order to stress the conceptual difference
between addressable discrete numbers and merely attributed without such
address positions. If you deny this conceptual difference, then you are
denying the difference between generally countable rationals on one
sinde and generally uncountable just fictitious reals on the other side.
In other words: Genuine numbers are countable, fictitious numbers are
uncountable. The latter do not have an available numerical address.
They are all equally fictitious, creations of the mind having no
existence outside of the mind.
This is an attempt to hide that Dedekind and Cantor built an Utopia.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Bob Kolker
- 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
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Next by Date: Re: 2006 Putnam problems
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|