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.independent

Topic: fom - 01 - preface
Replies: 18   Last Post: Dec 12, 2012 3:34 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,969
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: fom - 01 - preface
Posted: Dec 12, 2012 11:00 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 12/12/2012 12:54 AM, WM wrote:
> On 12 Dez., 03:21, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>> On 12/11/2012 12:55 AM, WM wrote:
>>

>>> On 10 Dez., 21:03, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>>>> On 12/10/2012 11:57 AM, WM wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>>> Yes. He did. But, Cantor's notion of a real
>>>> number was clearly found in the completion of a
>>>> Cauchy space.

>>
>>> That is completely irrelevant for the result.
>>
>>>> He found that more appealing
>>>> than Dedekind cuts. This is evident since
>>>> his topological result of nested non-empty
>>>> closed sets in a complete space is closely
>>>> related.

>>
>>>> There are ordinal numbers in set theory given
>>>> the names of natural numbers.

>>
>>> Only those which are finite.
>>
>>>> Find a different criticism of Alan's remarks
>>>> if you must. This one is incorrect.

>>
>>> So you disagree that 2 is a real number?
>>
>> Since you like quoting the Grundlagen, try
>> transcribing long detailed passages from
>> section 9

>
> I have written read an written everything Cantor wrote.
>

>> where Cantor rejects definitions
>> that conflate logical priority as you have
>> been doing.

>
> I have not been doing so. At that time there was no difference between
> reals, integers and cardinals (because Cantor did not suspect that
> there would apperar a contradiction). He just had switched from oo to
> omega. No alpphs in sight.

>>
>> That is where he calls his construction
>>
>> "... a fundamental sequence and correlate
>> it with a number b, TO BE DEFINED THROUGH
>> IT,..."
>>

>
> And those numbers are multiplied by real numbers.


wrong

the fundamental sequences ARE the real numbers


>
> [text unrelated to the topic deleted]

>>


Quite wrong.

That was the text that explained how the well-ordered
set that is referenced in 2*omega is
not described as a fundamental sequence.

Cite the sections from which
you are quoting. And quote significantly
lengthy passages so that the text is
in context.

















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.