
Re: mathematical infinite as a matter of method
Posted:
May 3, 2013 6:05 PM


On May 3, 12:21 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <749e1561d69b45af90013be3141ad...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, > Hercules ofZeus <herc.is.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 5:39 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > In article <Me6dnerBAcAL8O7MnZ2dnUVZ_rWdn...@giganews.com>, > > > > fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > > > This is a easy, readable paper of the same > > > > title by Kanamori. A historical analysis > > > > of how infinity entered mathematical discourse. > > > > >http://kurt.scitec.kobeu.ac.jp/~fuchino/xpapers/infinity.pdf > > > > > OP: Marc Garcia at FOM > > > > > (Virgil  you will find a familiar proof > > > > at the bottom of page 5) > > > > Yes! A nice version of it, too. > > > > And a nice paper which shows just how far out of any real mathematics WM > > > has put himself. > > > there is no _method_ to any of it though... > > > DEFINE digit1 is different to row1, digit2 is different to row2, and > > so on... > > therefore infinite strings are bigger sets than finite strings... > > > Its merely ONTO, SURJECTIVE definitions thrown directly onto > > a good optical effect of looking down the infinite plane at an angle > > > no new digit sequence is EVER constructed using this 'method' and this > > is provable. > > If you think it provable, then prove it to be provable by proving it. > > Ontherwise, what you merely claim is no evidence. > > >
ANY LIST OF REALS
0. a11 a12 a13 a14 ... 0. a21 a22 a23 a24 ... 0. a31 a32 a33 a34 ...
can be organised into arbitrary finite segments (TCPIP)
The AD trivially never produces a unique sequence of segments not listed.
Herc

