Date: Nov 17, 2012 3:46 AM
Author: LudovicoVan
Subject: Re: Matheology § 152

"LudovicoVan" <> wrote in message 
> "WM" <> wrote in message

>> And finally everybody knows that decimal numbers, by definition,
>> cannot consist of digits that have no indexs.

> With all due respect, you are an incorrigible fart who is committing
> himself to denying the meaningfulness of lim_{n->oo} n = oo.
> Unless I have misunderstood your remark: should that be where the heck,
> eventually, the infinitely many balls (indices) have gone in that {oo},
> then note that, formally, succ(oo) := oo (in the most basic extension),
> hence we have non-finite (i.e. limit) indices all along, not
> distinguishable one another (within the calculus!), so amounting to a
> singleton set.
> Incidentally, I insist, as a critical point, that we should be using N*,
> not N, for any "infinite endeavours": asking what happens to the vase in
> the limit is intrinsically a super-task and then, maybe, I start
> understanding why set theory (any set theory) compels actual infinities.

Where rather than why... Eventually, still no essential difference between
arithmetic and set theory.