On 6/23/2013 9:12 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > On Sunday, 23 June 2013 14:33:15 UTC+2, fom wrote: > >>> But I see that every number that you have access to has a finite number of predecessors and an infinite number of successors. That means you have access to less than 50 % of all numbers. > > Regards, WM > >> Hmm... infinite number? you probably mean 'indeterminate plurality' > > No, Virgil believes in set theory. There we have aleph_0 natural numbers following upon every accessible natural number (which there is abbreviated by natural number). > >> One of the reasons that my posts are so awkward is that I make the attempt to have my language conform to the views I express. > > Even in my language, i.e., the correct language, the number of numbers following every number is not finite. The opposite is "infinite", namely potentially infinite. Alas one should no longer say so since it was the misunderstanding of just this term which made a laughing stock of modern mathematics and mathematicians. > > Regards, WM >
Yes. But, you used it as a modifier to a noun.
Moreover, potential is not actual. This is the difference between indeterminate and determinate.
And, infinity can have an affirmative description not based upon a contrary
"Infinity is a plurality that is not a unity"
If I accept your reasoning, then I may merely ask why 'infinite' is not the definite concept with 'finite' being the derivative concept. The difference being, of course, that you wish me to count a 'stroke mark' where I know to count what is not a 'stroke mark' in order for a 'stroke mark' to be a countable individual.
And as for predicting the existence of numbers in a time that has not yet happened, that is just as delusional as any completed infinity.
I have no doubt that everything you say is correct in your own mind.
As for speaking in a language that Virgil understands...