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

Topic: § 424 Actual Infinity: We never get it - but
we get it!

Replies: 7   Last Post: Feb 7, 2014 4:59 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,403
Registered: 7/4/07
Re: § 424 Actual Infinity: We never get it - but
we get it!

Posted: Feb 5, 2014 5:59 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> writes:

> Am Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2014 20:07:01 UTC+1 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
>> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> writes:
>>

>> > Am Mittwoch, 5. Februar 2014 17:48:42 UTC+1 schrieb Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> writes:
<snip>
>> >> > You have not defined any path.
>> >
>> > I have defined three sets of paths, namely leading from the root node
>> > to each node and thereafter being completed by a tail of 000..., or
>> > 111..., or 010101...

>>
>> Why are you answering yourself?

>
> "You have not defined any path." was your assertion - as false as your
> present question.


No. You said it in reply to me. Even the quote marks show that it was
you. The Message-ID is
<d27cff93-834a-4169-bd33-4a8c443a45c9@googlegroups.com>

It's almost impossible to discuss anything when you can deny even this.
I think you are not in control of what you are saying anymore. I
suggest you take a moment to review what's been said.

<snip>
>> > Please write every path in as simple terms as you can. Perhaps that
>> > will remove your block.

>>
>> Funny. Do you still claim not to understand the definition of the set
>> of paths or do you want me to write it out in some other form?

>
> I understand your definition of a set that has cardinality 1. I will
> have to see how you define a path avoiding a finite definition, a
> so-called non-WMpath.


If you don't understand the standard definition of all the paths in the
tree (I am sure you do, but you pretend not to) then how can you say
anything about it at all?

Actually, maybe you don't understand it? I've always thought you are
being disingenuous in your replies, but it could be that you really
don't know how to specify the set of all paths, and can therefore only
think of it in your own narrow terms.

--
Ben.



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.