The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 214
Replies: 19   Last Post: Feb 11, 2013 4:56 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 18,076
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 214
Posted: Feb 11, 2013 3:39 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 10 Feb., 23:59, fom <> wrote:
> On 2/10/2013 3:55 PM, Virgil wrote:

> >>> Please explain "existing set".
> >> An existing set is a set that is finite or potentially infinite.
> > That would require all of them to already exist, implying that no new
> > ones could ever be created, or invented, or discovered.

> > Thus in WMYTHEOLOGY there can never be anything new.
> What would be the consequence of that invariance?
> Every potentially infinite set already exists.

Who said so?
I said if existing, then finite or pot infinite.
Now you return if pot infinite then existing.
Try to understand: A ==> B does not imply B ==> A.
Then you may go on to learn logic step by step, but not before
understanding this (small step for mankind, but obviously big step for
> Thus, potential infinity is immanent infinity.

> This is Cantor's argument.

Yes he made the same step. And his followers gladly accepted it. He
exchanged quantifyers on his "extended integers":
"For every integer n, there exists integer m: m >= n"
"There exists integer m, such that for every integer n: m >= n."

No reason to be proud about "understanding" that.

Regards, WM

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.