Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 293
Replies: 44   Last Post: Jun 27, 2013 2:25 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 fom Posts: 1,968 Registered: 12/4/12
Re: WMytheology § 293
Posted: Jun 23, 2013 10:59 AM

On 6/23/2013 9:12 AM, mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de 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.

"infinite number"

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"

Kant

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