LudovicoVan
Posts:
2,971
From:
London
Registered:
2/8/08
|
|
Re: Matheology § 152
Posted:
Nov 17, 2012 4:13 AM
|
|
"WM" <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message
news:0e1157e6-1304-424b-ad8c-d496a7ba3c22@bx4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> On 17 Nov., 09:26, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Please note: Here I am not dealing with whatever you may propose but
> with set theory and real numbers of analysis as they presently are.
It is at least interesting to distinguish between irrecoverable
incongruencies and reparable mistakes. The balls and vase problem rather
belongs to the second category (as I have repeatedly tried to show). Then
the relevance is obvious as it affects the actual import of your endeavour.
Most notably: what have you to say that my mathematics is out of standard?
-LV
|
|
