Re: Galileo's Paradox

In article <457EA97A.3030909@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I will perhaps no longer reply to nonsensical replies.

On 12/11/2006 9:29 PM, Virgil wrote:
In article <457D53C3.3060308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,


"uncountable" mean?

Uncountable is
definitely not a property of numbers. Numbers are always countable.
Nonetheless a single real "number" is uncountable.

Typical self-contradiction. "Uncountable" of an object means that it is
a set whose members cannot be injected into the set of naturals.

Uncountable is the opposite of countable. Therefore it has also to
include non-sets.

Which
Dedekind cuts does EB claim are uncountable by this definition?

E.g. sqrt(2).

I count that as one irrational. So, having been counted, it is hardly
uncountable.

Note that the word "uncountable" has a meaning in mathematical
discussions that overrides any of EB's puerile attempts to redefine it.
.

Quantcast