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 the

void and epistemological content of "Nothing".

Then, I ask again: what _value_ have transfinite cardinals, in terms

of application? Beyond the abstract and that pure mathematics is

justified for itself: where is the natural placement of modern

mathematics: 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't

like and can't attack: so for the rest of us, if you would, in any

manner you see fit: draw a line.

Draw a line, are the points in order? Draw a line, is each but the

first and last exactly defined by some previous and some following,

even penultimate and next? Draw a line, is each defined by beginning

and end?

Draw a line: is that uncountably many actions, or just one? For the

infinitely many points on that line justly drawn from a point: are

there countably many of them, or more than there are?

Because, there are certainly only countably many of them in a row.

Regards,

Ross Finlayson