An uncountable countable set
in [Math]
|
Prev: integral problem
Next: Prime numbers
From: Tony Orlow on 1 Oct 2006 20:35 MoeBlee wrote: > 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. > Thank you.
From: Tony Orlow on 1 Oct 2006 20:37 MoeBlee wrote: > 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 > Well, yes, there's always that. He's pretty much alone in that respect around here, I suspect, well, except for the dog-whatever part. ;) ToeKnee
From: Tony Orlow on 1 Oct 2006 20:39 Virgil wrote: > In article <45203919(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > > > >>> Since ordinals are, by definition, well ordered, they cannot contain any >>> endlessly decreasing sequences, which TO's models require. >> Neither can the reals. > > How about the set of negative integers? > How is that not an endlessly decreasing sequence of reals? The origin is at a finite location. Order starts from the bottom, if "decreasing" has any meaning.
From: Tony Orlow on 1 Oct 2006 20:39 Virgil wrote: > In article <452039fb$1(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Virgil wrote: >>> In article <4520254e(a)news2.lightlink.com>, >>> Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> In the binary number circle, "100...000" is both positive and >>>> negative infinity. >>> What about "100...0001"? >> That is the actual greatest negative integer > > Self-contradictory. not(what he said)
From: Tony Orlow on 1 Oct 2006 20:41
Virgil wrote: > In article <45203f37(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > >> Virgil wrote: >>> In article <452032b9(a)news2.lightlink.com>, >>> Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>> Virgil wrote: >>>>> In article <45201554(a)news2.lightlink.com>, >>>>> Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >>>>>> Virgil wrote: > >>>>>>> A set is a container, and is not one of the objects that it contains. > >>>>>> It is nothing more or less than its contents. > >>>>> It is determined uniquely and entirely by its contents, as stated in the >>>>> axiom of extentionality. > >>>> So we agree. There is nothing besides the members. >>> To say that it is completely determined by its members is not to say >>> that it "is nothing besides its members". If it were nothing besides its >>> members we cold not give it a name as a thing of its own. >> So, it is completely determined by its members, but that's not all there >> is to its determination. Uh huh. > > > TO tries so hard not to understand that the he almost always succeeds in > not understanding, as here. So, there's something else, besides the members of the set, which makes up the set? |