Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum


Math Forum
 Ask Dr. Math
 Discussions
 Internet Newsletter
 MathTools
 Problems of the Week
 Teacher2Teacher
 Teacher Exchange
 Workshops

Search All of the Math Forum:
Browse our Internet Mathematics Library

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: THE FOUNDATION OF NUMBERS BY CANTOR!
Replies: 6   Last Post: Jun 2, 2012 4:33 PM

Advanced Search
Reply to this Topic Reply to this Topic

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
INFINITY POWER

Posts: 108
Registered: 11/1/11
Re: THE FOUNDATION OF NUMBERS BY CANTOR!
Posted: Jun 2, 2012 4:33 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Jun 3, 12:23 am, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 11:38:05 PM UTC-4, Graham Cooper wrote:
> > THE FOUNDATION OF NUMBERS BY CANTOR!
>
> > AD[r]=/=LIST[r,r] -> AD[r]=/=LIST[r,r]
>
> > -> 2^aleph_0 > aleph_0
>
> > -> 2x2x2x2... > 1+1+1+1...
>
> > Incomplete..Inconsistent..Uncomputable..Uncountable..Unformalizable..
> > Unspecifiable..NotUniversal..NotVerifiable
>
> > Gee I W o n d e r why that is!!??
>
> > Herc
>
> Because you're confused. 2^aleph_0 is not 2x2x..., and
> aleph_0 is not 1+1+...

You deny every statement ever made here about X>oo once confronted.

Is Will Hughes confused then for stating

2X2X2.. = 2^aleph0
is the amount of binary strings?

Herc
--
http://freewebs.com/namesort/matheology/THE-HAMMER.jpg

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2013. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.