Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:41:16 -0700
In article <1173449054.506768.280680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 8 Mrz., 22:46, Tony Orlow <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
WM, you don't disagree that there are infinite sets containing just
finite values, such as the reals in [0,1], are you? I certainly agree
that an infinite set of naturals must contain infinite values, but
that's only because they are spaced apart by a unit in value. Isn't tat
your thinking?
If you disregad physical restrictions, then there are infinitely many
real numbers in the interval.
We do! There are!
Their cardinality, however, is not
larger than "infinite" for any set.
Then show us your claimed bijection between the set of naturals and the
set of reals, as having the same cardinality, as you claim, requires by
definition the existence of such a bijection.
If you take into account the physical restrictions, then there is no
infinite set. And that is the only correct approach.
Maybe in WM's pedantics but not in our mathematics.
.
- References:
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: William Hughes
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: William Hughes
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: William Hughes
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: William Hughes
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Prev by Date: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Next by Date: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Previous by thread: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Next by thread: Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading