Date: Nov 17, 2012 3:46 AM
Author: LudovicoVan
Subject: Re: Matheology § 152
"LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote in message

news:k87hne$8l7$1@dont-email.me...

> "WM" <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message

> news:f58b4287-182c-4a02-9e1f-74b57789bce7@b12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

>

>> 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.

-LV