LudovicoVan
Posts:
2,971
From:
London
Registered:
2/8/08
|
|
Re: Matheology § 152
Posted:
Nov 17, 2012 3:46 AM
|
|
"LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote in message
news:k87hne$8l7$1@dont-email.me...
> "WM" <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message
> news:f58b4287-182c-4a02-9e1f-74b57789bce7@b12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>
>> And finally everybody knows that decimal numbers, by definition,
>> cannot consist of digits that have no indexs.
>
> With all due respect, you are an incorrigible fart who is committing
> himself to denying the meaningfulness of lim_{n->oo} n = oo.
>
> Unless I have misunderstood your remark: should that be where the heck,
> eventually, the infinitely many balls (indices) have gone in that {oo},
> then note that, formally, succ(oo) := oo (in the most basic extension),
> hence we have non-finite (i.e. limit) indices all along, not
> distinguishable one another (within the calculus!), so amounting to a
> singleton set.
>
> Incidentally, I insist, as a critical point, that we should be using N*,
> not N, for any "infinite endeavours": asking what happens to the vase in
> the limit is intrinsically a super-task and then, maybe, I start
> understanding why set theory (any set theory) compels actual infinities.
Where rather than why... Eventually, still no essential difference between
arithmetic and set theory.
-LV
|
|
