In article <5da7c7ac-38d2-4040-875a-911d4c4484a9@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 26 Okt., 11:57, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 26, 7:36 pm, Gus Gassmann <horand.gassm...@googlemail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On Oct 26, 5:28 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Therefore the sequence (d_n) cannot include d_oo. > > > > > > but MAP(d_n) is equivalent to d_oo > > > > > > 1 12 123 1234 ... > > > > > > So you have a different paradox. > > > > > > An infinite width container of finite width objects. > > > > > Can you explain why that should be a paradox? > > Of course. It is a paradox because the container is constructed of > finite objects. And the container is considered by matheologicians as > independent of the finite objects.
Then WM must be the matheologist, as a set as a contianer is totally determined by which objects it contains and which one's it doesn't. > > > > N = 1 2 3 ... > > > > is interchangeable with > > > > MAP(N) = 1 12 123 ... > > > > which is a digestible form of the infinite sequence N > > > > 1 > > 12 > > 123 > > .. > > > > which the rows are finite width > > > > but the set of rows combined is equivalent to N > > > > 1 2 3 ... > > > > which is infinite width. > > > > The set of rows combined is the SET or CONTAINER > > Correct. > The container is expandable but it is not a fixed size larger than > every natural number.
