Re: Cantor Confusion

mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
William Hughes schrieb:

mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Please clarify a point of nomenclature.
Do you consider a potentially infinite
set containing only finite elements
(e.g. the natural numbers) to be:

1. a set ?
2. a finite set?

It is neither an actually infinite set nor is it a set in the sense of
set theory.
I call it a set, because "set" is a handsome word. I call it an infinte
set, because it is not a finite set. But if I talk to you about that,
you cannot understand, because you can only think in the notions of set
theory.

No, you can't talk about it because you don't HAVE a theory. If you had
a theory that were not set theory, then that in itself would not
prohibit people who understand set theory from also understanding your
theory. But you dont' have a theory, so the whole matter is nugatory
anyway.

MoeBlee

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... Please clarify a point of nomenclature. ... Do you consider a potentially infinite ... set containing only finite elements ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... Please clarify a point of nomenclature. ... set contianing only finite elements ... May I trouble you to restate the definition of "potentially infinite ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... a proof of B. (B follows from (A + linear ordering) iff there ... finite elements which forbids exchange of quantifiers. ... Consider the (potentially infinite) set of natural numbers. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... set contianing only finite elements ... May I trouble you to restate the definition of "potentially infinite ... There is no settled definition. ...
    (sci.math)