Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Lester Zick <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:44:38 -0700
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 17:30:18 -0500, David Marcus
<DavidMarcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tony Orlow wrote:
[. . .]
Of course I don't agree. You seem to be saying that infinite sequences
can't be handled in ZFC. Since ZFC has no trouble modeling the natural
numbers and defining functions, it clearly has no trouble acting as a
foundation for all of calculus and analysis.
It might be nice however if the Peano axioms could produce straight
lines for the natural numbers except by assumption.
~v~~
.
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: stephen
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: stephen
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: stephen
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: David Marcus
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by Date: Re: Galileo's Paradox
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):