Virgil
Posts:
4,655
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Matheology � 162
Posted:
Nov 29, 2012 6:29 PM
|
|
In article
<ca6dc00e-2f12-4d2c-8388-1db132437c3b@q5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> 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.
So that WM now concedes that completed infinities can exist.
> >
> > > 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.
Not in what? Note that since you concede that it is Not A Number in
"analysis" it need not have any digits in it and WM's whole argument now
clearly fails.
> >
> > > 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.
WM seemS to have been extremely interested in "how" it is called, since
WM claimS that calling it at all NECESSARILY involves strings of digits.
--
|
|
