Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Matheology � 261
Replies: 11   Last Post: May 11, 2013 7:48 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Virgil

Posts: 9,012
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 261
Posted: May 10, 2013 2:50 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
<693a8825-a900-4147-9b07-32e460f4f934@g7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 10 Mai, 03:59, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> >
> > I do not know if I am "right" or "wrong".

>
> Every assumption of finished infinity, unnameable names, unnumerable
> numbers, and unthinkable thoughts is wrong.


But only so in Wolkenmuekenheim.

At least one infinite set is necessary for both the proper definition of
and proper execution of induction.

The standard definition of the real number system, for which WM has no
acceptable substitute requires the existence of more numbers than names
so there have to be some unnameable numbers, but only in the weirdness
of Wolkenmuekenheim can there be anything like "unnumberable numbers".

And if something has been thought of by anyone outside of
Wolkenmuekenheim, it is certainly thinkable, even though WM's thinker is
far too handicapped to manage it.
--





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.