Re: an important set theory post

On Jul 24, 11:27 am, Dave Seaman <dsea...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You are confusing ordinals and cardinals here.  What you described is the
successor function for ordinals, which in this case should be written:

        succ(omega_0) = omega_0 + 1

or simply

        succ(w) = w+1.

(Sorry, my last (non) response was an accident.)

I'm trying not to use unreasonable-sounding words
now, but I'll try to tell you the problem I have
with that. Adding 1 to something infinite doesn't
produce anything, does it? It's still just as
infinite, no more, no less, than before you
added the one, I thought. Where am I going wrong
here?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: an important set theory post
    ... response was an accident.) ... I'm trying not to use unreasonable-sounding words ... Adding 1 to something infinite doesn't ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Equivalency Function
    ... >> I'm writing because I want to gauge your response ... pair of infinite sets to not be equivalent, ... branch of mathematics has a place in the explanation of physics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Can ZFC prove Addition is Associative?
    ... Metamath database since I didn't want to spend the time ... there are an infinite number of definitions because he repeatedly ... theorems of the form A+B=C. ... and I came up with my response. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: FIR and IIR systems
    ... is a finite-impulse-response example in continuous-time. ... response is naturally infinitely wide, but nobody asked for a "physical" ... and the impulse response is ... I can't see that a spectrum with infinite extent contradicts ...
    (comp.dsp)
  • Re: Brief overdrive
    ... but you do need infinite gain. ... then it follows from the ensuing straight line response that there is no ... slew-rate-limited opamp would respond with an infinite d2V/dt2 no matter what. ...
    (rec.audio.tubes)
Quantcast