Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Matheology � 300
Replies: 7   Last Post: Jul 11, 2013 7:39 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Tucsondrew@me.com

Posts: 508
Registered: 5/24/13
Re: Matheology § 300
Posted: Jul 11, 2013 7:39 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:35:42 AM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> "Virgil" <virgil@ligriv.com> wrote in message
>
> news:virgil-2828F2.14423709072013@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM...
>

> > In article <krhq6n$pvj$1@dont-email.me>,
>
> > "Julio Di Egidio" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
>
> >> "Virgil" <virgil@ligriv.com> wrote in message
>
> >> news:virgil-BD8D66.13090609072013@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM...
>
> >> > In article <80531f3f-0cd8-4070-afd5-2310a85de0f6@googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> > mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >> I deleted your formalism because it is meaningless. It cannot
>
> >> >> remove the fact that the urn is never empty of "the successor"
>
> >> >> which is always present - in infinity.
>
> >> >
>
> >> > Every natural that has successor is removed.
>
> >>
>
> >> Wrong: every one is removed but never all. Indeed (mind the
>
> >> spoiler):
>
> >
>
> > If you agree that every one is removed then you are agreeing that every
>
> > one is removed despite you denial of it.
>
>
>
> Speak for yourself, the one in denial here is you. Not only your statement
>
> is patently illogical for anybody able to think, I have even explained it
>
> formally, how your paralogism is just word salad. Here it is:
>
>
>

> >> To the paralogism that pretends to justify your take: 'for every ball
>
> >> n in N, exists step m in N such that n is removed at step m' just
>
> >> does *not* entail that 'the vase ends up empty', however you may
>
> >> think of formalising the problem and conclusion.
>
> >
>
> > When one adds that every one is removed before noon, one is equally
>
> > justified in saying the are all removed before noon.
>
>
>
> Every one *singularly* is removed at some specific time, but never *all*:
>
> i.e. that "everyone is removed by noon" meaning that all are removed is
>
> patently false logic. Of course, you will just keep repeating the same word
>
> salad ad nauseam: no surprise, as you are just WM's alter ego...
>
>
>

> >> Indeed, contrary to your pseudo-logic, for every step where 1 ball is
>
> >> removed, 2 (or more) balls are added, so that the vase rather must
>
> >> end up 'ever more full'. In fact, the set of balls that end up in of
>
> >> the vase, and the set of balls that end up out of the vase, both have
>
> >> cardinality aleph_0, with the needed bijections easily built.
>
> >
>
> > If you claim that some balls have not been removed before noon, name one!
>
> > And since every non-empty set of naturals has a smallest of first
>
> > member, you should be able to name the first one if there really were
>
> > one.
>
> >
>
> > So can you?
>
>
>
> Nope, and I have explained how that is: cardinality is based on bijections.
>
> If you want indexes, I'll use ordinals...
>
>
>
> Any serious objections? Of course not.
>


Just a request for clarification.

Explain the differences, as far as properties, between
the set of all Finite Cardinals and the set of all Finite Ordinals.

>
> Julio


ZG



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.