Date: Mar 22, 2013 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 22 Mrz., 21:54, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 7:24 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 22 Mrz., 16:24, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Infinite sets are different from finite sets
> > > but they do not contain anything
> > > "beyond any finite set".
> > Of course.
> We have now established that there
> are sets that do not contain anything
> "beyond any finite set" but
> are different from finite sets.
That is potential infinity.
Actually infinite sets, however, contain something beyond any finite
Consider the decimal representation of pi. It is an actually infinite
sequence beyond any finite sequence.
Or consider the Binary Tree, that contains only all finite paths. It
> So if you show that P is true
> for all finite sets of natural numbers,
> saying that there is a set for which
> P is not true, is not a claim that
> this set must contain something other
> than a natural number.
No it is a claim of foolishness. If I prove something for all finite
sets but say that there is a finite set for which the proof does not
hold, then I can refrain from proving anything. It would be nonsense
to do so.