Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 6 Dec 2006 08:15:43 -0800
Bob Kolker schrieb:
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I have understood the concept and its failure. (That is the parallel
between those who have not yet arrived and those who have already left:
Both are not there.)
What failure?
One of many examples: The set {2,4,6,...,2n} has a cardinal number less
than some numbers in the set. This does not change when n grows (yes,
it can grow!) over all upper bounds. Therefore the assertion that the
set of all even natural numbers has a cardinal number gretaer than any
even number is false.
Te concept of infinite sets has lead to the theory of
real and complex numbers, of integration and ultimately to theoretical
physics which as made possible the computer on which you spew your
nonsense internationally.
By their fruits ye shall know them. Mathematics based on infinite sets
has produced useful and even indispensible results. Try getting modern
physics without it.
For applications the usual way to interpret things is sufficient.
Regards, WM
.
- 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: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Franziska Neugebauer
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Bob Kolker
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Group on arbitrary ordinal
- Next by Date: Re: A reminder
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|