On Feb 25, 3:18 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:11:50 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc > <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in > <news:email@example.com> > in rec.arts.sf.written,sci.math: > > > On Feb 25, 3:20 am, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote: > >> Good grief. Is that crackpot still around? > > Who, me? > > No, Ross Finlayson. > > > Oh, wait. If it is me, you would not know I was still around > > as a result of having me killfiled. > > I don't use a killfile. > > Brian
Get used to it.
Those things are true, what I wrote: nothing more, nothing less.
No, transfinite cardinals aren't used in physics, and it would be of general interest if they were. And yes, physics needs mathematics of infinity, and transfinite cardinals don't seem to be it. And real or continuum analysis today uses countable additivity to get results. In physics, transfinite cardinals aren't around, not for lack of inclusion.
Cantor's antidiagonal result can simply be seen as that the line can't be drawn by placing its points out of order. Because, only when they are arrayed in their natural order, it doesn't apply.
And the Universe is its own powerset. And, it exists, because it does.