The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 210
Replies: 2   Last Post: Feb 8, 2013 4:24 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Alan Smaill

Posts: 1,103
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 210
Posted: Feb 8, 2013 6:26 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

fom <> writes:

> On 2/7/2013 7:54 AM, WM wrote:
>> On 7 Feb., 09:10, William Hughes <> wrote:
>>> On Feb 7, 9:00 am, WM <> wrote:
>>> <snip>

>>>> What does that mean for the set of accessible numbers?
>>> That this potentially infinite set is not listable.

>> Here we stand firm on the grounds of set theory.
>> Once upon a time there used to be a logocal identity: The expression
>> "Set X is countable" used to be equivalent to "Set X can be listed".

> Incorrect.
> Cantor understood that for a collection to be a
> set, there was an underlying canonical well-ordered
> form.

What about the real numbers?

Alan Smaill

Date Subject Author
Read Re: Matheology § 210
Alan Smaill
Read Re: Matheology § 210

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.