An uncountable countable set
in [Math]
|
Prev: integral problem
Next: Prime numbers
From: MoeBlee on 1 Oct 2006 19:27 mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > In *mathematics* that operation has been known and been defined well > enough 3000 years before Peano and before the cheeky set theorist. Not in a formal theory. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 1 Oct 2006 19:28 mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > This is an extremely good example that shows that set theory is at > least for physics and, more generally, for any science, completely > meaningless. Except theory axiomatizes the portions of standard mathematics used by physics and the sciences. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 1 Oct 2006 19:30 Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL wrote: > stephen(a)nomail.com schreef: > > > I suppose I should clarify this. You can approach the infinite > > using the the limit concept, but you always have to be careful > > when using limits, and you have to be precise about what you > > mean by the limit. > > Okay. But the point is whether there exist infinities that can _not_ > be approached using the limit concept. Obviously they exist, because > how can we approach e.g. the Continuum Hypothesis by employing limts? You don't know what you're talking about. You need to read a textbook on set theory. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 1 Oct 2006 19:35 Tony Orlow wrote: > You do realize that my statements involve a considerable amount of > personal reflection, don't you? Oh, no one should doubt THAT! Indeed your narcissism is EXEMPLARY.
From: MoeBlee on 1 Oct 2006 19:40
Tony Orlow wrote: > WM, HdB, Finlayson, others and I see that the definition is lacking. > There's also Zuhair and Petry, and a slew more. Yes, never let it be said that we suffer from a dearth of prodigious cranks. Petry, though, is not quite a crank as he is more just a dogmatist, Anti-Semite, and mass execution advocating nutcase. MoeBlee |