Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: WMatheology � 200
Posted:
Jan 26, 2013 5:41 PM
|
|
In article
<fdb5de7e-ffb3-49d5-9871-69c0a6a90601@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 26 Jan., 09:31, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0d063360-6dc5-4990-ba73-0400ce6c1...@w8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > 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, ...
> >
> > The natural numbers of analysis are members of the set of real numbers,
>
> Here I know of a difference: The collection of real numbers in
> analysis is countable and is therefore not the a of set theory.
>
> > but cardinal numbers are not members of the set of real numbers.
>
> Here I don't know of a difference in the finite domain. Can you help?
> Regards, WM
Since I have no idea of what you mean by "in the finite domain", I
cannot help you, but we have both known for a along time that you would
never accept my help anyway.
--
|
|
