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: § 534 Finis
Replies: 6   Last Post: Aug 18, 2014 2:05 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,972
Registered: 7/4/07
Re: § 534 Finis
Posted: Aug 16, 2014 3:49 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply writes:

> On Friday, 15 August 2014 22:32:19 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>> > What do you understand by my "misunderstanding"?
>> Exactly what you said: that the sequence of cardinalities should have
>> limit 0 if set theory was right.

> In fact, if the set limit was the set at omega.

You'd need to define the WMglish term "the set at omega". I explained
how set sequence limits can be defined in the little paper I wrote and
there is no "set at omega" involved. You are free to reject these
limits, or to label them with any WMglish adjective you like, but you
can't choose what set theory says about it's own definitions.

>> Set theory says that the limit of
>> cardinalities (we are talking about s_n here, yes?) is exactly what you
>> expect it to be: oo

> What are the infinitely many elements that the cardinality measures?

The limit does not measure anything, because there is no "final set" for
it to measure. That is the core of you misunderstanding.


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.