YBM
Posts:
277
Registered:
11/27/09
|
|
Re: Matheology § 162
Posted:
Nov 29, 2012 6:15 PM
|
|
Le 29.11.2012 22:49, WM a écrit :
> 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.
You are a disgusting and stupid crank, WM.
|
|
