|
|
Re: Matheology § 162
Posted:
Nov 29, 2012 4:49 PM
|
|
On 29 Nov., 19:12, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
wrote:
> In article <c89b62f0-d926-4b1b-a0ae-8d899d76f...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
>
> >On 29 Nov., 14:27, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
> >> In article <54e3fdd3-12f9-449e-8d84-ef2782e34...@a15g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> >> >On 28 Nov., 19:20, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
> >> >> >Have you meanwhile convinced yourself that analysis is capable
> >> >> >expanding infinity
>
> >> >> "Expanding infinity"? What on Earth is that supposed to mean? In math,
> >> >> one is supposed to define their terms.
>
> >> >An expansion of a number is a power series giving its value.
>
> >> But, there is no such number as "infinity", so your words are still
> >> gibberish.
>
> >In set theory, there is such a number.
>
> Repeating a lie does not make it true. Set theory (at least ZF) does not
> have a number called "infinity".
There the number is called omega or aleph_0. That's but another name
for completed infinity.
>
> > In analysis there is such an
> >improper limit,
>
> And the reason that it's called an "improper limit" is because limits
> are properly numbers, and it's not a number.
Not in anaysis. Therefore I said improper limit.
>
> > an element of the extended reals.
>
> I've not studied the extended reals. I am aware that oo is an element of
> them. But, is it called a "number" in that case?
It is not of interest how it is called. But if some one calls it a
number, like Cantor who even talked about integers (ganze Zahl) then
it is called a number.
Regards, WM
|
|
