Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.

On Mar 17, 8:59 am, Tony Orlow <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 13, 9:22 am, Tony Orlow <t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
cbr...@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."

I think he was referring to the content of the following paragraph.

Perhaps, but he didn't comment on the first. :(



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?

One question might be "what is an example of a neighborhood that is
finite yet unbounded?"

The atmosphere. :)


In what sense is the atmosphere finite? In what sense is it unbounded?
If the atmosphere is finite, then there is a molecule of the
atmosphere which is the farthest from Earth. A distance greater than
that distance is a bound on the atmosphere, no?

If you add 0 forever, you will never get anywhere, right? If you append
points to points, you can never make a line of any length, right? But,
you have lines of finite length, and they have an uncountable number of
points within them. No countable number of points can constitute a line
segment of any length, but an uncountable number can, in theory.

Consider this an analogy to the addition of finite units. No countable
number can achieve any infinite measure, where such a thing is properly
established. Aleph_0 is, the way I see it, the equivalent of the
smallest positive number, on the infinite scale. The smallest positive
number does not exist, finite or infinite.

So, "countably infinite" means "finite but unbounded" to me.


So in your terminology, the distinction between something which is
finite and something which is not finite is so vague that a
mathematical object can simultaneously have the property of being
finite and also /fail/ to have the property of being finite.

That argues for your perhaps developing a new term that corresponds to
what is usually meant by "finite", so that the term actually /
describes/ the property of being "finite" in the usual sense.
Otherwise, I have no idea what you mean by "finite". In the usual
sense, it is not possible for a mathematical object to be both finite
and not finite.

In a countable set, there are only a finite number
of elements between any two specific elements.

Counterexample: The set of rationals in [0,1] is a countable set, and
there are an infinite number of elements between any two distinct
elements of that set.

Not in the order in which they are countable.

Is 1/2 between 1/4 and 3/4 "in the order in which they are countable"?

Why don't you give me two
rational numbers, which are not finitely distant in the
pseudo-sequential non-quantitative (read, bogus) ordering of the
rationals through sparse diagonalization? Which comes infinitely beyond
any other, in that "countable" sequence? Hmmm....


So you yourself claim that your statement only makes sense if we use a
"bogus" ordering of the rationals? Hmmm indeed!



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?

Another question might be "are you aware of the difference between the
definitions of a list of elements from a set, a total order on the
elements of that set, and a well-ordering of the elements of that
set?"

Cheers - Chas

Make it relevant to the topic, and we'll discuss that.


You said:

"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."

By "since successor() exists", you seem to imply that:

"/Because/ successor() exists, they are actually infinitely distant
elements of a sequence".

But the existence of a successor function does /not/ imply a set is
(or can be made into) a sequence or list, in the usual definition. It
doesn't even imply a set is infinite, in the usual definition. Nor
does it necessarily impose a total order; it may be at best a partial
order.

Let T be the set of all triangles in the plane. If t is a triangle,
define successor(t) to be t after being rotated around the origin by
pi/sqrt(2) radians. Every t has a unique successor. Every triangle t
has a unique triangle for which t is its successor.

Despite the existence of successor(), T is not a sequence; nor can it
be made into a sequence, because T is uncountable

Also, we can certainly define "t1 < t2" as "there is a natural number
n such that t2 is the result of applying the successor function n
times to t1". But there are triangles t and u such that it is not the
case that t < u or u < t or t = u.

These observations arise from the definitions of "sequence" and "total
order"; which is why I asked: ""are you aware of the difference
between the definitions of a list of elements from a set, a total
order on the elements of that set, and a well-ordering of the elements
of that set?"

Cheers - Chas

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Infinite numbers. An alternative to Cantor.
    ... > I'm not sure what you mean by infinite here. ... The case where a termination of a calculation, a finish, is 2. ... If 2 had a successor ... represent a solitary number from a sequence without also representing ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Infinite numbers. An alternative to Cantor.
    ...  > I'm not sure what you mean by infinite here. ... If 2 had a successor ... The sequence is defined by the successor relation, ... Aleph null isn't presentable as a digit. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: infinity
    ... Not while discussing the consequences of the axioms as they actually are! ... > You never commented on my adjustment of the Peano axioms, ... IF you claim to have generated an infinite set with your ... I am applying only finitely many successor operations at ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >>> The Peano axioms prohibit any complete Peano set from having a largest. ... You never commented on my adjustment of the Peano axioms, ... Well, after all, you ARE applying an INFINITE number of successor operations, ... IF you claim to have generated an infinite set with your stepwise difninition, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Infinite numbers. An alternative to Cantor.
    ... > I'm not sure what you mean by infinite here. ... or termination of a calculation or presentation. ... If 2 had a successor ... represent a solitary number from a sequence without also representing ...
    (sci.logic)