Re: The modern mathematical concept of infinity is indefensible

On Jan 26, 10:22 am, Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article
<fdc29d2c-cbdb-4940-9f1c-fd2e4e6c4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 umum...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 25 jan, 00:43, David R Tribble <da...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mitch Harris wrote:

I don't see how they are different. We can work with representations
('-a + a = 0', 'oo + 1 = oo', or we can work with the ideas
(negatives, where a number plus its negative is zero, orinfinity,
where adding 1 toinfinityresults ininfinity). I don't think one can
show a physicalinfinityand I think that's what you're saying (on the
other hand I think -I- can) but I also think you can similarly not do
it for negatives. (hm...I think I can do that too)

Han de Bruijn wrote:

It's freezing: minus 9 degrees centigrade. Right ?

Ralf Bader wrote:

Wrong. Bad temperature scale.

Han de Bruijn wrote:

Suppose you have minus 500 Euro on your bank account ?

Then you owe someone 500 Euro.
So I guess -9 C outside means someone is owed 9 degrees.

Unless your thermometer is written in Fahrenheit.

What was the temperature of the Universe just before the Big Bang?

There hasn't been a Big Bang.

How can you be so sure? The best scientific theorists cannot exclude it,
so how can you.

The Big Bang would start with a singularity, right ? Well, let me tell
you that there ARE NO singularities in Nature. Natura non facit saltus.

Han de Bruijn-

== The pope HdB has decided: there are no singularities (whatever
those things are) in nature. Period!
But...why? Well, I bet because of the same reason he's decided set
theory is wrong: his guts told him.
Okee-dokee....gotcha.

Regards
Tonio
.

Relevant Pages
Loading