Prev: Nam makes a attempt of defining finite-number #339; Correcting Math
Next: CompIMAGE 2010: Call for Short Communications
From: Brian on 25 Jan 2010 10:30
On Jan 24, 9:33 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > You have the number of ways q quanta can be arranged.  Next you have
> > the number of ways of arranging these arrangements.   Continue long
> > enough and you'll eventually surpass the "largest number" in finitely
> > many steps.

Try again, this time actually addressing this point.

>
> Finite-number, not finite set.

A number is finite if it is the cardinality (cardinal number) of a
finite set. (If we're talking natural numbers.)
From: A on 25 Jan 2010 11:11
On Jan 25, 10:30 am, Brian <tenn...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 9:33 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
>
> <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Brian wrote:
> > > You have the number of ways q quanta can be arranged.  Next you have
> > > the number of ways of arranging these arrangements.   Continue long
> > > enough and you'll eventually surpass the "largest number" in finitely
> > > many steps.
>
> Try again, this time actually addressing this point.
>
>
>
> > Finite-number, not finite set.
>
> A number is finite if it is the cardinality (cardinal number) of a
> finite set. (If we're talking natural numbers.)


AP has already claimed (in this thread) that the notion of number is
not logically dependent on the notion of sets--evidently he doesn't
think numbers are what we use to count things.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Nam makes a attempt of defining finite-number #339; Correcting Math
Next: CompIMAGE 2010: Call for Short Communications