Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Allan C Cybulskie (allan.c.cybulskie_at_yahoo.ca)
Date: 03/22/05
- Next message: Nick: "Re: Does "c" loose some velocity after leaving a dense medium back into space?"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: cavitation Damage"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:28:58 -0500
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3a97t3F69j58cU1@individual.net...
>
>
> Allan C Cybulskie wrote:
> >
> >
> > Would we agree that there are two elements in the set {a, b}?
>
> Yes.
> >
> > Would we agree that there are at least three elements in the set of
> > integers?
>
> Yes
> >
> > What more do you need?
>
> What happens when you have two infinite sets. What does more mean then.
> When one of the sets if finite there is no problem.
Then why did you bring it up?
> Given a finite set
> and an infinite set it is not contoversial to say the infinite set has
> more elements. This is true, when cardinality is intended by "more".
> Given two finite sets the comparison of number of elements IS the
> cardinality definition. If A and B are finite and you match each element
> of A with an element of B and A runs out before B, then B has more. But
> this is the cardinality comparison again. The interesting case is when
> both A and B are infinite. So tell us what "more" means other than in
> the cardinality sense?
More means the common sense, and you can determine it sometimes by appealing
to how the sets are defined.
- Next message: Nick: "Re: Does "c" loose some velocity after leaving a dense medium back into space?"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: cavitation Damage"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
