On 1 Mrz., 23:51, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The argument is not only time. > > m can change even though the time does not ?
The maximum depends on the personal environment, the capability to abbreviate numbers, the wish to do so, and many more factors. It invents relativity into mathematics. > > > 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.
But there are all FIS of d, which must be in infinitely many different lines of the complete list.
This is a contradiction, because the list, by definition cannot fulfill this requirement.
Why do you refuse to consider this simple fact? > > 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.