Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum


Math Forum
 Ask Dr. Math
 Discussions
 Internet Newsletter
 MathTools
 Problems of the Week
 Teacher2Teacher
 Teacher Exchange
 Workshops

Search All of the Math Forum:
Browse our Internet Mathematics Library

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

Advanced Search
Reply to this Topic Reply to this Topic

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: 12,658
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 214
Posted: Feb 11, 2013 3:43 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 11 Feb., 08:48, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <b96a20cb-7991-4a49-84ca-6bd658501...@w7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
>    WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> >> Every potentially infinite set already exists.
>
> > But none of them are, or ever can become, infinite.

They cannot "become" actually infinite.
>
> Since such "sets" are neither finite nor not finite (infinite), they are
> nonexistent.
>
> And in van Dalen, p 118, a letter from Brouwer summarising his thesis:
>   "I can formulate:
>        1.  Actual infinite sets can be created mathematically"

As I already mentioned, that is due to an understandable error. At
that time mathematicians were drilled to understand by the finite
expression "0.111..." an actually infinite sequence of digits. That is
wrong.

Regards, WM

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2013. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.