Galileo's Paradox
in [Math]
|
From: Virgil on 27 Nov 2006 21:38 In article <456AB50B.3090901(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de>, Eckard Blumschein <blumschein(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote: > >> Do you mean somebody here is not familiar with all of your wise utterances? > > > > EB seems to remain ignorant of them, however often and by whomever they > > are repeated. > > Cantorians equate "same quality to never end" with "same size". That EB should say so dislays clearly his ignorance.
From: Virgil on 27 Nov 2006 21:39 In article <456AC3DE.8070809(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de>, Eckard Blumschein <blumschein(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote: > My father told me the story of a little poor boy who in the twenties of > last century bought mixed sweets. The salesman gave him a red one and a > green one and said: Do mix them yourself. > > Having some evidence that the green sweet means countable and red one > uncountable, I can not even know that red is lager than green or vice > versa. > > Eckard Blumschein So EB is even poorer than that little boy.
From: Virgil on 27 Nov 2006 21:41 In article <456AEF1F.9010400(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de>, Eckard Blumschein <blumschein(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote: > There is only one ideal concept of actual infinity. > Spinoza was possibly the first one who clearly understood that infinity > cannot be enlarged. If it cannot be enlarged, it can also not be exhausted. > This concept is very useful in engineering. But not in mathematics.
From: Virgil on 27 Nov 2006 21:46 In article <456AF47F.5030908(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de>, Eckard Blumschein <blumschein(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote: > On 11/26/2006 9:24 PM, Six wrote: > > It seemed > > to me that accepted practice and the resultant prejudice is all the other > > alternative has to recommend it. Perhaps, though, accepted practice should > > not, in the end, be despised. > > Why not if it is unfounded? Those who declare it should be despised have no better foundings for their claims. > > > If the result is some wonderful mathematics, > > and the alternative is a dead end. > > Neither nor, on the contrary: Set theory did not create progress. > There is not even a single application for > aleph_2. If EB has to have a profit, pray give him a penny and send him on his way.
From: Virgil on 27 Nov 2006 21:48
In article <456AF6F8.5020307(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de>, Eckard Blumschein <blumschein(a)et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote: > On 11/27/2006 3:21 AM, stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: > > > There is no need to resolve the paradox. There exists a > > one-to-correspondence between the natural numbers and the > > perfect squares. The perfect squares are also a proper > > subset of the natural numbers. This is not a contradiction. > > What is better? Being simply correct as was Galilei or being more than > wrong? (Ueberfalsch) Galileo was both right and wrong. He applied two standards to one question and was confused when they gave different answers. |