Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.

cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 12, 2:11 pm, Tony Orlow <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mueck...@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. Their cardinality, however, is not
larger than "infinite" for any set. Therefore we need no alephs etc.
The binary tree shows that different alephs are self contradictive.
If you take into account the physical restrictions, then there is no
infinite set. And that is the only correct approach.
Regards, WM
Well, since numbers are not physical entities, they don't actually
occupy space on the number line - they are true points. So, between any
two finitely distant points are indeed some infinite number of points.
You say that the only correct approach is to take into account
"physical" restrictions, but where the subject is non-physical, those
restrictions don't exist, though relations do, even if between infinite
nonphysical concepts called numbers.


Wow! That actually made sense for an /entire/ /paragraph/.

:)

DM said, "Wow! That makes even less sense than WM's posts. Although, it doesn't quite reach the heights of Ross's nonsense."


Where we can count in sequence from one element to any other, that
neighborhood is finite, even if unbounded. Where we can never count
between some pair of objects, such as between, say, ...1111 and
....2222, they are actually infinitely distant elements of a sequence,
since successor() exists.

Ermm... what th'!?!

Cheers - Chas


Was that a question? In a countable set, there are only a finite number of elements between any two specific elements. There are an infinite number of adic numbers between ...111 and ...222, no? And the adics each have a distinct successor, yes? What was the question?

Smiles,

Tony
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wheres respect? was Re: Corrective interpretation of real numbers
    ... finite or infinite set, might be considered lesser. ... deniers about the charge that a proper superset is definably larger ... the reals with iota-values the pseudo-reals, but I just call them the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Wheres respect? was Re: Corrective interpretation of real numbers
    ... finite or infinite set, might be considered lesser. ... deniers about the charge that a proper superset is definably larger ... the reals with iota-values the pseudo-reals, but I just call them the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... In unary, or base one, the only way to represent reals from the unit ... with an infinite alphabet, again it fails, again, nonstandardly. ... W have discussed the first proof, which essentially has the same result: ... as opposed to your supposedly infinite set with a finite number of successions. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... >> beyond those indexes found in the infinite set of finite naturals. ... Which shows, as was to be proved in the first place, that the reals ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors circular "proof" that evens = integers
    ... this is an inherent property of infinite sets simply ADDS this belief as ... That's an axiom; prove otherwise Jesse! ... For an infinite set x, I can only take that to mean 2 times ... equinumerous with a proper subset of itself. ...
    (sci.logic)