On Mar 1, 10:33 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 1 Mrz., 15:50, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 1, 2:47 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > On 1 Mrz., 13:14, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 1, 12:19 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > On 28 Feb., 23:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 28, 11:29 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > I think that there is a variable maximum or limit that depends (among > > > > > > > others) on t. > > > > > > > So what did the statement > > > > > > > There is no m(t). > > > > > > > mean? > > > > > > We cannot fix it in the sense required for "there is" of current > > > > > mathematics. > > > > > So at a given time t, > > > > m has a value which is a > > > > natural number, but we cannot > > > > assign this natural number > > > > to a function. > > > > Can you find a largest natural number in your personal environment? > > > Can you determine the largest natural number that your computer is > > > able to compute? > > > Well, I don't know the values, but I certainly can assume > > they exist and do not change if time does not change. So I can > > have a(t), the largest number in my personal environment > > at time t, and b(t) the largest number that my computer > > is able to calculate at time t. (I don't suppose that > > the largest number that a given computer is able to > > compute can change, > > That depends on the abbreviations the user invents (Ackermann, Knuth). > > > but certainly the computer > > referred to as "my computer" can change). > > I only need assume that the value of m exits and > > does not change if time does not change and then > > I can assign the value of m to a function of time > > The argument is not only time.
m can change even though the time does not ?
> But in general your description is > acceptable. > > So what is your true opinion about this potential infinity which, > contrary to finished infinity, is not self-contradictory and allows > for all calculations required in analysis?
I "Potential infinity" does not differ in any essential way from "finished infinity". The language changes a bit, and at times you need more words but the behaviour is the same.
E.g
With finished infinity you do not have a largest natural
With potential infinity you do not have a largest non-variable natural
With finished infinity there is no line of L that contains every FIS of d.
With potential infinity there is no line of L that has a non-variable index and contains every FIS of d
With finished infinity there are no balls in the vase.
With potential infinity there are no balls with a non-variable label in the vase.
