Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Matheology § 176
Replies: 10   Last Post: Dec 11, 2012 12:33 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
fom

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 176
Posted: Dec 11, 2012 12:33 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 12/10/2012 3:11 PM, Virgil wrote:
> In article
> <c293798d-5b7e-4eba-a4df-6332461dc681@f19g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
> WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>

>> Matheology § 176
>>
>> Here's a paradox of infinity noticed by Galileo in 1638. It seems that
>> the even numbers are as numerous as the evens and the odds put
>> together. Why? Because they can be put into one-to-one correspondence.
>> The evens and odds put together are called the natural numbers. The
>> first even number and the first natural number can be paired; the
>> second even and the second natural can be paired, and so on. When two
>> finite sets can be put into one-to-one correspondence in this way,
>> they always have the same number of members.
>>
>> Supporting this conclusion from another direction is our intuition
>> that "infinity is infinity", or that all infinite sets are the same
>> size. If we can speak of infinite sets as having some number of
>> members, then this intuition tells us that all infinite sets have the
>> same number of members.
>>
>> Galileo's paradox is paradoxical because this intuitive view that the
>> two sets are the same size violates another intuition which is just as
>> strong {{and as justified! If it is possible to put two sets A and B
>> in bijection but also to put A in bijection with a proper subset of B
>> and to put B in bijection with a proper subset of A, then it is insane
>> to judge the first bijection as more valid than the others and to talk
>> about equinumerousity of A and B.}}
>>
>> [Peter Suber: "Infinite Reflections", St. John's Review, XLIV, 2
>> (1998) 1-59]
>> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/infinity.htm#galileo
>>
>> Regards, WM

>
> Note that the part in {{ }} above is WM's addition, which runs totally
> counter to the Peter Suber's own conclusion which reads:
>
> "Conclusion
> Properly understood, the idea of a completed infinity is no longer a
> problem in mathematics or philosophy. It is perfectly intelligible and
> coherent. Perhaps it cannot be imagined but it can be conceived; it is
> not reserved for infinite omniscience, but knowable by finite humanity;
> it may contradict intuition, but it does not contradict itself. To
> conceive it adequately we need not enumerate or visualize infinitely
> many objects, but merely understand self-nesting.



To wit,

Definition of proper part:
AxAy(xcy <-> (Az(ycz -> xcz) /\ Ez(xcz /\ -ycz)))

Definition of membership by Aquinian individuation:
AxAy((xey <-> (
Az(ycz -> xez) /\
Az((xez /\ -ycz) -> (Ew(xew /\ wcy) \/ Aw(zcw -> ycw))))))





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.