Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Virgil
Posts:
6,972
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: fom  01  preface
Posted:
Dec 12, 2012 3:36 PM


In article <eacda8d4f07a48889730a311651f5725@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote:
> On 12 Dez., 12:07, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > WM <mueck...@rz.fhaugsburg.de> writes: > > > On 11 Dez., 12:54, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > > > <spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote: > > >> In <virgil2FC1D7.13530210122...@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM>, on > > >> 12/10/2012 > > >> at 01:53 PM, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> said: > > > > >> >In order to define the product of a real number times a > > >> >transfinite, the definition must hold for all reals and all > > >> >transfinites. > > > > >> There's a more fundamental problem; she/he/it is conflating cardinals, > > > > > Cantor was a male. So "he" would be appropriate. > > > > And the problem is passed over in silence by WM. > > No
The problem is : In order to define the product of a real number times a transfinite, the definition must hold for all reals and all transfinites. To which WM makes no response because he realizes that it is true, and he had no answer for it. 



