The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

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

Topic: ? 417 An implication of actual infinity
Replies: 2   Last Post: Jan 17, 2014 3:46 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: ? 417 An implication of actual infinity
Posted: Jan 17, 2014 3:46 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <>, wrote:
> On Friday, 17 January 2014 16:59:23 UTC+1, wrote:
> > On Friday, January 17, 2014 8:54:19 AM UTC-4,
> > wrote:

> > > On Tuesday, 14 January 2014 23:14:55 UTC+1, wrote:
> > > > > I am not considering the limit
> > > > So you are not considering an infinite sum.
> > > If there are infinitely many natural numbers, then I am considering
> > > infinitely many finite sums.

> > And, by definition, the infinite sum is the limit of
> > the infinitely many finite sums. So if you do not consider
> > the limit you do not consider the infinite sum.

> There is no infinite sum but, as you say, only the limit. This limit has no
> definition by infinitely many numbers, because in mathematics, never
> infinitely many numbers can be listed number by number.

A sequence of positive real numbers whose partial sums are collectively
bounded,, will have a limit sum, regardless of whether WM has any finite
definition for such a sum or not.

Or does WM claim a "real number system" in which there are of sets of
rationals bounded above that need not have any least upper bound?

WM's systems are sufficiently strange that he might just claim that.

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.