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: (infinity) A real story
Replies: 9   Last Post: Oct 16, 2013 9:08 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 3,201
From: London
Registered: 2/8/08
Re: (infinity) A real story
Posted: Oct 12, 2013 2:39 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

<mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message
news:070c8685-8bde-4ddc-9b71-93058e60463c@googlegroups.com...
<snip>

> Above you see their widely known formulation of the natural numbers. They
> did not think about the problem of inclusion monotony, probably because
> they did not imagine the set in the form of my table.
>
> 1
> 1, 2
> 1, 2, 3
> ...


That is as as wrong as the other one to which I just have replied, in fact
equivalent. Note that the diagonal is in 1-to-1 correspondence with the
last line, in the finite as in the infinite: plain geometry.

> In mathematics actually infinite sets simply do not exist.

You are wrong, or at least have never managed to show otherwise.

> According to Cantor "set" does exclude potential infinity. Potential
> infinity exists only in analysis.


And I'd agree with that, although it literally means that N as standardly
intended is not in fact a set. Are we sure that that is what Cantor said?
You make me wonder...

>> I can't see how it can include potentially infinite sets,
>
> But actually infinite sets do not exist in mathematics at all.


You are wrong: in fact, arguably, they may be the only kind of infinite sets
that can be consistently conceived.

> If there was an aleph_0, then it must be either in one line of the matrix
> or in two or more lines. But it cannot be there.


And yet again we rather and immediately see that that is bollocks, just your
equivocation on the terms of a perfectly symmetrical construction.

> It is not a mathematical problem, but only a psychological one.

Psychology is good for lying.

Julio





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.