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.