On 2/22/2013 5:05 AM, WM wrote: > On 22 Feb., 02:08, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: >> So >> >> A) For every natural number n, P(n) is true. >> >> implies >> >> B) For any n: There does not exist a natural number >> between 1 and n such that P(n) is false >> >> However, we cannot conclude >> >> B') There does not exist a natural number >> m such that P(m) is false > > In potential infinity there is no actually infinite set, i.e., there > is no completed infinity. That means there are only finite sequences. > However we cannot find a last element, although we can conclude that > it exists. > > Compare my example: > > A B > --> 1 -->{ } > --> 2,1 -->{ } > --> 2 -->1 > --> 3, 2 -->1 > --> 3 -->1, 2 > --> 4, 3 -->1, 2 > --> 4 -->1, 2, 3 > ... > --> n -->1, 2, 3, ..., n-1 > --> n+1, n -->1, 2, 3, ..., n-1 > --> n+1 -->1, 2, 3, ..., n-1, n > ... > > There is no last element in B. Every x from 1 to every n you desire > can be in B. Nevertheless there is never an empty A. > > That is all we can know about infinity. (Not my fault.)
Yes. But being rude and ignorant toward others certainly is.
what you are describing here is the structure of the natural numbers as a directed set.
There is actual mathematics that describes this.
There are logics in which your reasoning can be formalized.
And the fact that this structure remains as absolute infinity relative to Cantor's transfinite arithmetic does not make that arithmetical calculus not mathematics.
If you have an objection that may be called "matheology", it is precisely against individuals such as yourself who have little appreciation for the extent of the subject and create urban legends by regurgitating facts about topics in which they have expended little effort to study.
