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: Matheology § 210
Replies: 24   Last Post: Feb 12, 2013 1:12 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de

Posts: 15,039
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 210
Posted: Feb 10, 2013 4:37 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 9 Feb., 22:09, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> Does the finiteness of the members of that set establish the finiteness
> of the set itself?


The finiteness of the natural numbers in combination with the constant
difference of 1 establishes that the natural numbers are in bijection
with the initial segments. This together with principle of induction
implies that the sequence 1, 2, 3, ... has no upper threshold. It is
potentially infinite, but it is not actually infinite.
> > > What term or terms does WM want to use for
> > >    "more than any finite number finite levels"?


Potentially infinite.
>
> > The term is infinity, the limit is the same (improper limit) as of
> > the supersequence 1, 2, 3, ... of 2, 4, 8, ..., denoted by oo.

>
> Actually, proper grammar, at least in English, requires that the term be
> "infinite" not "infinity"


You are not a native speaker? The noun is infinity. Compare any
dictionary of your choice.

Regards, WM



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.