Date: Dec 7, 2012 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 170
On 6 Dez., 21:34, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> WM <mueck...@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.
I cannot show it. And I believe that they do not exist at all. But a
matheologian must assume that they exist.
> > 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.
Correct. That is a valuable recognition! But an infinity that is less
than a larger infinity forces to believe in such crap.