On Jan 26, 9:24 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > Matheology § 200 > > We know that the real numbers of set theory are very different from > the real numbers of analysis, at least most of them, because we cannot > use them. But it seems, that also the natural numbers of analysis 1, > 2, 3, ... are different from the cardinal numbers 1, 2, 3, ... > > This is a result of the story of Tristram Shandy, mentioned briefly in > § 077 already, who, according to Fraenkel and Levy ["Abstract Set > Theory" (1976), p. 30] "writes his autobiography so pedantically that > the description of each day takes him a year. If he is mortal he can > never terminate; but if he lived forever then no part of his biography > would remain unwritten, for to each day of his life a year devoted to > that day's description would correspond." > > This result is counter-intuitive,
Correct. But counter-intuitive does not mean contradictory. Outside of Wolkenmeukenheim, the limit of cardinalites is not necessarily equal to the cardinality of the limit.