Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Topic: Matheology § 214
Replies: 19   Last Post: Feb 11, 2013 4:56 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de Posts: 18,076 Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 214
Posted: Feb 11, 2013 3:39 AM

On 10 Feb., 23:59, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> On 2/10/2013 3:55 PM, Virgil wrote:
>
>
>
>

> >>> Please explain "existing set".
>
> >> An existing set is a set that is finite or potentially infinite.
>
> > That would require all of them to already exist, implying that no new
> > ones could ever be created, or invented, or discovered.

>
> > Thus in WMYTHEOLOGY there can never be anything new.
>
> What would be the consequence of that invariance?
>
> Every potentially infinite set already exists.

Who said so?
I said if existing, then finite or pot infinite.
Now you return if pot infinite then existing.
Logic?
Try to understand: A ==> B does not imply B ==> A.
Then you may go on to learn logic step by step, but not before
understanding this (small step for mankind, but obviously big step for
you).
>
> Thus, potential infinity is immanent infinity.

No.
>
> This is Cantor's argument.

Yes he made the same step. And his followers gladly accepted it. He
exchanged quantifyers on his "extended integers":
"For every integer n, there exists integer m: m >= n"
to
"There exists integer m, such that for every integer n: m >= n."

No reason to be proud about "understanding" that.

Regards, WM

Date Subject Author
2/10/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/10/13 fom
2/10/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/10/13 Virgil
2/10/13 fom
2/10/13 Virgil
2/11/13 fom
2/11/13 Virgil
2/11/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/11/13 fom
2/11/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/11/13 Virgil
2/11/13 Virgil
2/11/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/11/13 fom
2/11/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
2/11/13 Virgil
2/11/13 Virgil
2/10/13 fom
2/10/13 Virgil