Re: The infintely small number b

On Nov 26, 7:08 pm, Venkat Reddy <vred...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Let me also mention that even if they are the "same object", equating
it with itself requires ability to compare, which can't be assumed to
be possible in the case of largest and smallest numbers.

Saying this repeatedly has not made it true. As I've said and
others apparently agree, if you introduce any mathematical object
into a system that does not equal itself, you've destroyed most
of mathematics. You don't have determinism any more, for example.
Determinism is important. It means you get the same answers
when you run the same calculation a second time. You don't
get equational substitutability, which means you can't solve any
equations any more. You destroy set theory too, but I don't
imagine you think that's a big deal. Propositional logic I think
will remain unspoiled however.

Equating the largest and smallest numbers with themselves
can and is assumed to be possible.


Marshall
.

Quantcast