
Re: mathematical infinite as a matter of method
Posted:
May 3, 2013 6:03 PM


On May 3, 8:15 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 5/3/2013 2:43 AM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > > > Its not possible to test Equality by Extension in the inf. case. > > That is correct Herc. > > On the other hand, it is not possible to interpret > the universal quantifier as a universal statement if > it is interpreted as a courseofvalues. > > Aristotle wrote this. It is ignored by a certain > contingent of the mathematical community who merely > argues on the basis of beliefs concerning infinity. > > You know well that any computer system balances > choices that affect performance. Relational databases > run faster on logic chips optimized for integral > arithmetic as opposed to floating point. The analogy > applies here. > > Brouwer had been clear concerning how the effectiveness > of working with finite sets differed from working > with infinite sets. But, the reason infinity enters > mathematics is because it is how the identity relation > is extended to convey the geometric completeness of a > line when used to represent the real number system. > > Infinity does not arise because of testability. It > arises because of the nature of the identity relation.
If there are more SETS in ZFC than FORMULA in ZFC (David C Ullrich)
ZFC FORMULA  ZFC SETS
1 ___________ a i 2 ___________ b p q r 3 ___________ c j n 4 ___________ d s t k u v 5 ___________ e z w ...
THEN WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ...
A SET OF ZFC ?
Herc

