Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 166
Replies: 2   Last Post: Nov 30, 2012 8:56 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Scott Berg Posts: 2,111 Registered: 12/12/04
Re: Matheology � 166
Posted: Nov 30, 2012 8:56 PM

"WM" <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message
>
> The fact that some discrete items might lack a determinate number,
> this being connected with the possibility of them being given as a
> complete whole, was, of course, the traditional, Aristotelian point of
> view, which Intuitionists, more recently, have still held to. But many
> others now doubt this fact. Is there any way to show that Aristotle
> was right? I believe there is.

huh ?

>
> For when discrete items do clearly collect into a further individual,
> and we have a finite set, then we determine the number in that set by
> counting. But what process will determine what the number is, in any
> other case?

by counting, or not counting, which do you think ?

> The newly revealed independence of the Continuum
> Hypothesis shows there is no way to determine the number in certain
> well known infinite sets. [...]

if it was infinite, than you could not determine the number, right ?

>The key question therefore is: if
> there is a determinate number of natural numbers, then by what process
> is it determined?

you have cart before horse.

> Replacing 'the number of natural numbers' with
> 'Aleph zero' does not make its reference any more determinate.

no, Aleph wont like that.

> The
> natural numbers can be put into one-one correspondence with the even
> numbers, it is well known, but does that settle that they have the
> same number?

what do you mean by "settle" ?

<snippith crappith>

Date Subject Author
11/30/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/30/12 Virgil
11/30/12 Scott Berg