Date: Dec 6, 2012 3:34 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 170
In article

<3415af00-09f4-42d3-9fee-938eee11cb63@4g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,

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

> 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.

Actually, you cannot, or at least have not, shown that they exist at all.

A part of your argument seems to be that endless sequences must have two

ends, which is sufficiently contrary minded to be mathematically

unacceptable.

> If we can surpass them, walking along the

> sides of the angle, they must be somewhere.

If you could 'surpass' them, they would not be endless sequences, which

you have already claimed them to be.

--