Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:02:54 -0700
In article <457af7ba$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <MPG.1fe4233fd1946032989a0c@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
David Marcus <DavidMarcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tony Orlow wrote:
Okay, a "potential" infinite set is one where each element, like theWhat do you mean "a specific string associated with it", and what is a
naturals, has a specific string associated with it, which has a
left-hand end.
"left-hand end"?
If TO means a string having a first character but not a last one, the
set of all such is uncountable, so cannot represent a merely
"potentially infinite" set.
I mean a finite string.
Finite strings are alleged to have TWO ends, a lef-hand end AND a
right-hand end, so merely specifying that a string has a "left-hand end"
does not indicate that it must be finite.
By a specific string, I mean one which differs
from all other strings in the language in at least one position.
Countably infinite means potentially infinite.
What does "potentially infinite" mean to TO?
I do not know of any mathematical system in which any of the
pseudo-definitions of "potentially infinite" so far presented here make
any sense.
.
- 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
- From: Tonico
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Tonico
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Virgil
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Previous by thread: Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Next by thread: Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|