Re: Galileo's Paradox and the Project of the Reals


Tony Orlow wrote:
Mike Kelly wrote:
Tony Orlow wrote:
Mike Kelly wrote:
Tony Orlow wrote:
Mike Kelly wrote:
Tony Orlow wrote:
David Marcus wrote:
Tony Orlow wrote:
David Marcus wrote:
You haven't noticed that Tony is a crank? And, that what he wrote above
is vague nonsense?
I'd rather be a crank than a cog, or a stick in the mud, David.
Then I guess you've got your wish. Tell me: are you incapable of
learning math or do you choose not to?

I choose not to accept nonsense conclusions justified by unsound axioms,
if that's what you mean...
Which axioms would those be?

Take the axiom of infinity, for instance. It declares an infinite "set",
but it cannot do so with just the notion of set membership, so it
inserts Peano's successor relation as well.
Please state the axiom of infinity.
There exists a set such that 0 is an element of the set, every element
has a successor, and the successor of every element is also an element
of the set.

What is 0? What is "successor"? What does this have to do with Peano's
successor relation? How does the axiom of infinity not rely solely on
set membership?


Because it orders the sequence linearly, not as an unordered set.

Uh, no it doesn't.

There are no pure infinite
sets. All infinite "sets" are sequences or other inductive structures,
with order.
I have no idea what your definition of "a pure set" is. Pray provide a
definition.

One using only "element of" in its definition, without using succ() or '<'.

Succ() or < can be defined in terms of "element of" so apparently all
sets are pure sets.


Is pi an element of 4? Is January an element of February?

I don't think so. So what?

<snip>
Set theory says there are sets that can be bijected with some of their
subsets. Do you accept that?

Sure.

So you're just arguing about terminology. You accept what set theory
actually *says*, which is that some sets can be bijected with their
subsets. And, for example, that the evens can be bijected with the odds
and both can be bijected with the naturals.

I don't argue that. I argue against thinks like c=2^aleph_0,

That's the continuum *hypothesis*? Or did I miss something...

or that omega-1=omega.

Strawman. Nobody has said that but you.

Using set theory doesn't require calling cardinality "size". People
call cardinality "size" becase it makes intuitive sense to most people
to think of it as size. I must've told you a dozen times that if you
wish you can just replace "has equal cardinality to" with "is
bijectible with" and nothing is changed. You don't have to "accept
proper subsets being the same size as their supersets" because set
theory doesn't say that.

It certainly claims to have the correct answer when it says these sets
are "equinumerous".

Where does set theory claim "these sets are equinumerous"? I'm pretty
sure it just claims that they're bijectible.

I'd like an acknowledgement from you that set theory doesn't say
anything about "size". You've been told this lots of times but keep
repeating the same garbage.


The axioms don't say "size" but that's clearly the motivation for
transfinite cardinalities.

So? You arguments are against calling cardinality "size". Well, get
this, set theory *doesn't* call cardinality "size". It calls it
cardinality. It uses it as shorthand for bijectability. Whether you
call it size or not is totally irrelevant.

The question here is whether one can
attribute a size to an infinite set, and if so, what is the most
appropriate method?

Appropriate for what?

Cardinality is very simple, relying only on set
membership and corresponding to set size, in the finite case.

Cardinality is, indeed, very simple. Amazing then how much some people
struggle with it.

Infinite
sets require some sort of inductive definition, some kind of order or
process.

Tosh. What inductive definition, order or process defines the set of
all functions from the natural numbers to the natural numbers?

They can't be finitely defined on an individual set membership
basis.

Is this supposed to mean "you can't name every element of an infinite
set explicitly"? Or what?

So, when it comes to infinite sets, this notion of order, however
it is implemented in the definition, should be considered in relative
"set" measures.

Uhh. I think all infinite sets can have an (infinite number of?)
ordering(s) defined upon them, but it's totally wrong to say that all
infinite sets have "a notion of order implemented in the definition".

By all means, say "they have the same cardinality", but don't use
"equinumerous" or "set size" when discussing transfinite cardinalities,

Why should everyone else change terminology for your benefit?

because they are only very rough classifications.

Compared to what?

--
mike.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z
    ... >>And then at some point this led us to deciding that cardinality and ... >>meant for an infinite set to have a certain number of elements. ... always goes hand in hand with subtraction. ... Does the interval on the reals have to include 1? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... >> So you claim that all infinite sets have the same cardinality? ... >What I don't understand is what the notion of cardinality really is. ... on about, it's not mathematics, it's a confession of faith (and ... or on whether "axioms" in one system or another ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... You agreed that it is not a cardinality ordering. ... 'infinite') in one ordering, which is not a cardinality ordering, is ... problem is that you spout about non-standard analysis while you haven't ... and mathematics that that book uses as that book is written ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... all Cantorian approaches like this, that they are in the same general ... >>Not contradiction according to Cantorian cardinality. ... Why should it not be true of infinite ... And what finer distinction does it make than between sets that are ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... all Cantorian approaches like this, that they are in the same general ... >>Not contradiction according to Cantorian cardinality. ... Why should it not be true of infinite ... And what finer distinction does it make than between sets that are ...
    (sci.physics)