```Date: Mar 30, 2013 7:12 PM
Author: ross.finlayson@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On Mar 30, 2:31 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:> In article> <64234559-3810-43e3-b49e-70f668c09...@kw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,>  "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote:>> > On Mar 27, 8:06 am, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com>> > wrote:>> Ross citing himself brought nothing of value to anything.> --"Nothing" has value to some.  Here that's a simple reference to thevoid and epistemological content of "Nothing".Then, I ask again:  what _value_ have transfinite cardinals, in termsof application?  Beyond the abstract and that pure mathematics isjustified for itself:  where is the natural placement of modernmathematics:  for natural physics.The answer as of yet is "none".So, I can well see where's your "proof" (vis-a-vis truth in theory):where's your "use"?  What arises from cites of transfinite cardinals,except, more of same?Then, I can also well see that Hancher ignores presentation he doesn'tlike and can't attack:  so for the rest of us, if you would, in anymanner you see fit:  draw a line.Draw a line, are the points in order?  Draw a line, is each but thefirst and last exactly defined by some previous and some following,even penultimate and next?  Draw a line, is each defined by beginningand end?Draw a line: is that uncountably many actions, or just one?  For theinfinitely many points on that line justly drawn from a point:  arethere countably many of them, or more than there are?Because, there are certainly only countably many of them in a row.Regards,Ross Finlayson
```