Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: "Tonico" <Tonicopm@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 5 Dec 2006 13:02:55 -0800
Tony Orlow ha escrito:
Eckard Blumschein wrote:***********************************************************
On 12/4/2006 9:56 PM, Bob Kolker wrote:
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
But aleph-0 is a quantity.
2*oo is not larger than oo. Infinity is not a quantum but a quality.
Bob Kolker
To those who belive in the usefulness of that illusion.
Aleph_0 is a phantom. The aleph_0th natural starting from 1 would be
aleph_0. It's not a count of the naturals. There is no smallest infinity
but, sorry to have to tell you, Eckard, a whole spectrum of infinities
that extend above and below any given infinite expression. Sure,
transfinitology is quasi-religious. Actual infinity can be quite
sensible, though. :)
Tony
Just like good'ol Mad Journal with Spy vs Spy, but here it is "Troll vs
Troll"...fascinating.
Tonio
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- References:
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Virgil
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Bob Kolker
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Bob Kolker
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Prev by Date: Re: Infinite simple groups and their proper subgroups
- Next by Date: Re: Variation on binomial distribution
- Previous by thread: Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Next by thread: Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|