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

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 ]
fom

Posts: 1,968
Registered: 12/4/12
Re: Matheology § 214
Posted: Feb 11, 2013 3:55 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 2/11/2013 2:43 AM, WM wrote:
> 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.


Right and wrong....

What, in modern mathematics, happened to change that
situation?






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.