Re: an important set theory post

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:33:52 -0700 (PDT), calvin
<crice5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 25, 9:04 am, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:46:11 -0700 (PDT), calvin
<cri...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

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?

Where you're going wrong is misunderstanding the
notion of a _definition_. You have the (not unreasonable)
impression that you know what addition is, and then
object that what's above doesn't seem right.

But in fact what's above is simply the _definition_
of omega + 1.

So, omega+1 is merely notation for something that
has a clear meaning?

Uh, yes. The clear meaning has been clearly explained
to you here - omega + 1 is the union of omega and
{omega}.

If so, then it would seem to me
to be in the same category as the notation, 2^aleph_0,
which stands for 'the cardinality of the set of all
subsets of a set that has cardinality aleph_0.'

Uh, yes, it's in the same category in that both
are _definitions_. What's your point?
David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: an important set theory post
    ... of the meaning of a standard notation like ... the cardinality aleph_1, but that doesn't make ... "Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: an important set theory post
    ... The clear meaning has been clearly explained ... to you here - omega + 1 is the union of omega and ... which stands for 'the cardinality of the set of all ... nothing (except as notation). ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: an important set theory post
    ... to you here - omega + 1 is the union of omega and ... which stands for 'the cardinality of the set of all ... nothing (except as notation). ... with the meaning of the notation "2 + 2". ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: More natural numbers
    ... that if a well-ordered set of numbers (of whatever ... have a cardinality that is GREATER THAN the number of elements in the set. ... "omega - 1" has no meaning, at least as far as I know. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: non-Archimedean models of Euclidean geometry?
    ... The axiom basically says that if every point in A is to the ... isomorphism exactly one model for each infinite cardinal. ... has non-isomorphic models of the same cardinality. ... That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to." ...
    (sci.logic)
Quantcast