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.independent

Topic: Matheology § 285
Replies: 84   Last Post: Jun 15, 2013 6:05 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Tucsondrew@me.com

Posts: 281
Registered: 5/24/13
Re: Matheology § 285
Posted: Jun 14, 2013 2:30 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Friday, June 14, 2013 7:46:52 AM UTC-7, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:
> On Friday, 14 June 2013 10:32:20 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
>

> > > Enumerate the rationals as far as you like. Let n be the largest natural number that ever a human being will think about. Then with 1, 2, ..., n you will have enumerated less than > 10^-10000000000000000000000000000000000 of all rationals. Much less!
>
>
>

> > Read what I wrote, dummy.
>
>
>
> You want to qualify for the class of Sam Sung and the like?
>


No.

>
> > For any particular rational, you must be able to find a step where 1/2 all the rationals less than that particular rational, not 1/2 of all rationals, must be placed in its final place.
>
>
>
> Why should that be required?
>
> In set theory the argument is Cantor's*): If no q remains ouside, then all q will get inside.
>


What?
Where did Cantor argue for a linear order of Q by magnitude.
Learn some Order Theory, if you can comprehend it.

>
> > Now change "rational" to "natural". You should ( but probably lake the intellect to ) be able to see the difference.
>
>
> It is not a matter of intellect, and why should it be wet or red? It is a matter of logic. Your requirement is that at some point already infinitely many rationals must have been enumerated and be in the well-ordered set. It is obviously nonsense to have in the process of enumerating infinitely many.
>

Wet and red are not well defined Mathematical terms.

That is required, and it can't be fulfilled and that is why
the Well-Ordering of Q respecting magnitude is impossible!
The rationals and the naturals are NOT order isomorphic.

How dare we talk of completed infinite, as such is the domain
of God. Saint William shall have us all burnt at the stake.
>
> *) Here is a "proof" by Cantor, showing his principle for a correlation between two infinite sets:
>
>
>
> Klar ist zunächst, daß auf diese Weise allen Intervallen Dn bestimmte Punkte pn zugeordnet werden; denn ... es erfährt daher der aus unsrer Regel resultierende Zuordnungsprozeß keinen Stillstand.
>


This is out of context?
What is Dn and what is pn?
Also, I'm sure, whatever proof this is from, it's about
Cardinals and not Ordinals.

Do you know the difference?

>
> That is the condition to be satified. And have satisfied it.
>
>
>
> Regards, WM


ZG


Date Subject Author
6/11/13
Read Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
JT
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Ralf Bader
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/14/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/14/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/14/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/14/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/15/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/15/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/15/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/15/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Tanu R.
6/15/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/15/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/15/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/14/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/13/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Virgil
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13
Read Re: WMytheology ???
Virgil
6/12/13
Read Re: WMytheology ???
Scott Berg
6/12/13
Read Re: WMytheology ???
Virgil
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Virgil
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Virgil
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
LudovicoVan
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
LudovicoVan
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/12/13
Read Re:Outside the wild weird world of WMytheology
Virgil
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/13/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/12/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
LudovicoVan
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Tanu R.
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology § 285
Tucsondrew@me.com
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Virgil
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology � 285
Tanu R.
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology ? 285
Virgil
6/11/13
Read Re: Matheology ? 285
Tanu R.

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.