Date: Mar 30, 2013 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On Mar 30, 2:31 pm, Virgil <> wrote:
> In article
> <>,
>  "Ross A. Finlayson" <> wrote:

> > On Mar 27, 8:06 am, "Ross A. Finlayson" <>
> > 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.


Ross Finlayson