Re: Is one-to-one mapping valid for comparing infinite-sized sets?
- From: "Salviati" <eckard.blumschein@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 01:42:59 +0200
"Virgil" <Virgil@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Virgil-2EDDB7.12505402102008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <48e4ecf0$0$28916$9b4e6d93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Salviati" <eckard.blumschein@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
There are not many cases in mathematics itself where
Cantor's paradise seriously harms.
Of course, Buridan's donkey is still a challenge, and
many many students have to unnecessarily swallow
arbitrary decisions and inconsistencies.
However, the main touchstone is application
in particular in physics.
It certainly seems to be for physicists, but is considerably less so
for those who are not physicists.
Yes. Nonetheless, I see the original flaws related to thinking
of mathematicians within the German empire which was
doomed to fail twice. The word ueberabzaehlbar has roots
close to Nietzsche's Uebermensch. Cantor and Nietzsche were
simultaneously in Halle. Sound common sense says: There is
no superman, and there is nothing uncountable because it
countains more than an infinite amount.
Salviati
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is one-to-one mapping valid for comparing infinite-sized sets?
- From: Ralf Bader
- Re: Is one-to-one mapping valid for comparing infinite-sized sets?
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Is one-to-one mapping valid for comparing infinite-sized sets?
- Next by Date: Re: CERN concern
- Previous by thread: Re: Is one-to-one mapping valid for comparing infinite-sized sets?
- Next by thread: Re: Is one-to-one mapping valid for comparing infinite-sized sets?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|