Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: David Marcus on 7 Dec 2006 01:58 Virgil wrote: > In article <1165322199.723733.167650(a)79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > Franziska Neugebauer schrieb: > > > 1/3 is not a sequence at all. It is a rational number. > > > > Some correspondents try to think themselves. I encourage you to join > > them. > > WM rekes not his own rede. Or, WM thinks too much by himself. -- David Marcus
From: David Marcus on 7 Dec 2006 02:03 Eckard Blumschein wrote: > On 12/4/2006 8:47 PM, Virgil wrote: > > In article <1165238765.397374.303270(a)79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, > > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > >> Most "mathematicians" even don't know what potentially infinite is. > > > > As it is a useless idea, such ignorance is bliss. And WM's sinful > > attempts to destroy that innocence is reprehensible. > > Cantor still understood that the Aristorelian potentially infinite point > of view is quite different from actual infinity. Don't you think it a bit much for you to be telling us what Cantor understood? You've yet to demonstrate an understanding of any mathematics. > The formerly Archimedean axiom of infinity describes the potential > infinity. > > Blissful ignorance of mathematicians does not utter complains if the > axiom of (possibly infinite) extensionality claims the existence of a > set which has to include all of its elements. > > According to my reasoning this does neither clearly include nor clearly > exclude the actual infinity, i.e. all elements together. > Nobody complains. Obviously, the fiction of actual infinity is merely > required from theoretical point of view. Nobody really needs it in > practice. This preserved ambiguity lead to the theoretical imperfections > I reported. Quite right: neither "potential infinity" nor "actual infinity" occur in modern mathematics. Time to leave the Antiquarian Bookshop and join the 21st century. -- David Marcus
From: David Marcus on 7 Dec 2006 02:04 Bob Kolker wrote: > Eckard Blumschein wrote: > > > Roughly speaking, it just claims that a set is unambiguously determined > > by its elements. If i recall correctly A=B<-->(A in B and B in A) > > > > Perhaps the Delphi oracle provided less possibilities of tweaked > > interpretation betwixed and between potential and actual infinity. > > What is "potential" infinity. Can you define it rigorously? Even a non-rigorous defintion would be a start. -- David Marcus
From: David Marcus on 7 Dec 2006 02:10 Eckard Blumschein wrote: > On 12/5/2006 10:54 PM, Virgil wrote: > > In article <4575A562.60602(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de>, > > Eckard Blumschein <blumschein(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote: > > > >> Blissful ignorance of mathematicians does not utter complains if the > >> axiom of (possibly infinite) extensionality claims the existence of a > >> set which has to include all of its elements. > > > > EB should read what axioms of extensionality actually says before > > pontificating. > > Roughly speaking, it just claims that a set is unambiguously determined > by its elements. If i recall correctly A=B<-->(A in B and B in A) Do you really mean "in"? Regardless, why would you go from memory? And, why "roughly speaking"? Don't you think it is important to be precise? Don't you have a book or a website or a library where you can look things up? You've already admitted to never taking a course that covered this material. Don't you think you look foolish when you criticize standard mathematics while repeatedly demonstrating your lack of knowledge of what you are criticizing? -- David Marcus
From: David Marcus on 7 Dec 2006 02:14
Eckard Blumschein wrote: > Nevertheless, all these arguments of mine are most likely flawless. Wow! That has got to be your most absurd statement yet! -- David Marcus |