R H Draney wrote: > Stan Brown filted: >> >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:47:49 +1100, DavidW wrote: >>> Tom P wrote: >>>> [quoted text muted] >>>>> Whoever, whomever or whomsoever they are, they need "who". >>>> >>>> True. And there are indeed infinities that are larger than others, >>>> in fact infinitely many. >>> >>> No, there are not. >>> >> >> Surely you can do better than starting a round of "is not!" "is too!" > > And this, boys and girls, is why we tend to disapprove of > crossposting....r
I thought Stan Brown might have been intending to be humorous, so I resisted pointing out that I explained my position in the next part of the post. Here is my complete response to that subject within the post. -------------------------- > True. And there are indeed infinities that are larger than others, in > fact infinitely many.
No, there are not.
> The set of real numbers is larger then the set > of integers, for example.
No. You start giving me real numbers and for each one I'll give you an integer. We can keep doing that for as long as you like and I will never run out of integers. Now you'll probably say that you didn't really mean "larger" after all and want to bring up bijections and cardinality and such like. Save it.
This stuff is similar to producing absurd results such as 2 = 1 after dividing by zero. The world of infinities is a bizarre world in which you can make anything happen and common words like "larger" change their meanings. --------------------------
I don't think that can be described as "is not!" "is too!". I was willing to let it go but you seem to be taking it seriously and I don't think the charge is deserved. Perhaps it requires more maths knowledge to make the connection than is typical at at.usage.english.