Date: Dec 6, 2012 5:55 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 170
On 6 Dez., 11:36, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> In article

> <fb9f656b-8ae6-4e38-87d1-33e24c7d9...@a2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

>

>

>

>

>

> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > On 6 Dez., 10:36, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> > > In article

> > > <cc5c24a4-0ec4-4f48-8b90-9463aed1b...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,

>

> > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > > > On 5 Dez., 19:48, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>

> > > > > WM has already adequately demonstrated to the world again and again that

> > > > > he does not speak for mathematicians

>

> > > > Is aleph_0 a quantity (i.e. possibly in trichotomy with other

> > > > quantities) or not?

>

> > > Not to those who, as in the case of WM, deny that it can be properly

> > > defined as a cardinality or ordinality.

>

> > > But not everyone is so negatively oriented towards such things as

> > > general definitions of cardinality and ordinality as WM is.

> > > --

>

> > So, to you it is a quantity? Then we can put the question whether the

> > lengths of the sides of my triangle can be in trichotomy. There is an

> > angle of 45 and its sides have length 1*aleph_0 = aleph_0 and

> > sqrt(2)*aleph_0 = aleph_0. Now my question: Is the third side aleph_0

> > or less or larger?

>

> Until you can show that those alleged "sides" have endpoints other that

> that alleged common point, you question assumes conditions contrary to

> fact.

I can show that the endpoints are closer to the common point than the

unit length time 2^aleph_0. If we can surpass them, walking along the

sides of the angle, they must be somewhere.

Regards, WM