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.