Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Tanu R.
Posts:
543
Registered:
12/13/04


Re: Infinite and Theology (37)
Posted:
Nov 23, 2013 5:22 PM


wolfgang.mueckenheim@hsaugsburg.de schrieb:
> Am Freitag, 22. November 2013 22:40:40 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil: >> In article <0b1a5d3557f7469eb935e536418f1627@googlegroups.com>, >> >> wolfgang.mueckenheim@hsaugsburg.de wrote: >> >> >> >>> Am Freitag, 22. November 2013 01:41:17 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil: >> >>> > In article <d8432e17a5624d68ac1fcac3dce67463@googlegroups.com>, >> >>> > >> >>> > WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hsaugsburg.de> wrote: >> >> >> >>> > > The first indices k supply an actually infinite diagonal number, the >> >>> > > second indices k an only potentially infinite. >> >> >> >>> > Thus WM claims to have created a bijection that is not a bijection. >> >> >> >>> The first and second indices are coupled together by the diagonal element. >> >> >> >> Then WM must concede that his an potential infiniteness equals actual >> >> infiniteness by his own coupling of them. > > Actual infinity is more than every natural number.
Nonsense  the power set of N is PROPERLY more than N.
> Every decimal expansion > is actually infinite, for instance 0.111...
Of course  its index set is homeomorph with N.
> Is this a term of the potetially infinite sequence 0.1, 0.11, ... ?
There is some sequence.
>>> The different ranges show that actual infinity and potential infinity >>> do not fit together. >> >> >> Then why do you say above that they do fit together?? > > I did never say so.
You did.



