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 § 170
Replies: 41   Last Post: Dec 8, 2012 5:35 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Virgil Posts: 8,833 Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 170
Posted: Dec 6, 2012 3:34 PM

In article
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 6 Dez., 11:36, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > > On 6 Dez., 10:36, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > In article

> >
> > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > > > On 5 Dez., 19:48, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > WM has already adequately demonstrated to the world again and again
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > he does not speak for mathematicians

> >
> > > > > Is aleph_0 a quantity (i.e. possibly in trichotomy with other
> > > > > quantities) or not?

> >
> > > > Not to those who, as in the case of WM, deny that it can be properly
> > > > defined as a cardinality or ordinality.

> >
> > > > But not everyone is so negatively oriented towards such things as
> > > > general definitions of cardinality and ordinality as WM is.
> > > > --

> >
> > > So, to you it is a quantity? Then we can put the question whether the
> > > lengths of the sides of my triangle can be in trichotomy. There is an
> > > angle of 45 and its sides have length 1*aleph_0 = aleph_0 and
> > > sqrt(2)*aleph_0 = aleph_0. Now my question: Is the third side aleph_0
> > > or less or larger?

> >
> > Until you can show that those alleged "sides" have endpoints other that
> > that alleged common point, you question assumes conditions contrary to
> > fact.

>
> I can show that the endpoints are closer to the common point than the
> unit length time 2^aleph_0.

Actually, you cannot, or at least have not, shown that they exist at all.

A part of your argument seems to be that endless sequences must have two
ends, which is sufficiently contrary minded to be mathematically
unacceptable.

> If we can surpass them, walking along the
> sides of the angle, they must be somewhere.

If you could 'surpass' them, they would not be endless sequences, which
you have already claimed them to be.
--