| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<4z6dnRekN8mNDOz6nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2024 18:12:32 +0000 Subject: Re: Incompleteness of Cantor's enumeration of the rational numbers (extra-ordinary, effectively, super-standard) Newsgroups: sci.math References: <vg7cp8$9jka$1@dont-email.me> <7356267c-491b-45c2-b86a-d40c45dfa40c@att.net> <vjufr6$29khr$3@dont-email.me> <4bf8a77e-4b2a-471f-9075-0b063098153f@att.net> <vjv6uv$2dra0$1@dont-email.me> <31180d7e-1c2b-4e2b-b8d6-e3e62f05da43@att.net> <vk1brk$2srss$7@dont-email.me> <bb80c6c5-04c0-4e2d-bb21-ac51aab9e252@att.net> <vk23m7$31l8v$1@dont-email.me> <bce1b27d-170c-4385-8938-36805c983c49@att.net> <vk693m$f52$2@dont-email.me> <a17eb8b6-7d11-4c59-b98c-b4d5de8358ca@att.net> <vk7dmb$7mh2$2@dont-email.me> <b72490c1-e61a-4c23-a3a5-f624b2c084e4@att.net> <vk8tbq$j9h1$1@dont-email.me> <bd7dfdc7-6471-4fe6-b078-0ca739031580@att.net> <vklumc$3htmt$1@dont-email.me> <c03cf79d-0572-4b19-ad92-a0d12df53db9@att.net> <n9CdnR02SsevtPL6nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> <45a632ed-26cc-4730-a8dd-1e504d6df549@att.net> <vkpa98$dofu$2@dont-email.me> <15f183ae29abb8c09c0915ee3c8355634636da31@i2pn2.org> <vkra77$tpqs$1@dont-email.me> <c952199b5513be28bb1f5c8b374a2d7a77470743@i2pn2.org> From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2024 10:12:21 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <c952199b5513be28bb1f5c8b374a2d7a77470743@i2pn2.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <4z6dnRekN8mNDOz6nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 65 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-AzSZL1GXDhyT8lc5mCmp45T6f5BJ/SNz6heZ7mu6KnKoTHkrzosYKREsnWrOsj+oHNWweYVZ7WMC7aQ!TdF+kvBPdh4Ld1pojjt6pfMeWxzw7DiCbxNuBsFdMf+eTuVI399Tl70+inGHMFsoxWikWxEI28Q= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 4295 On 12/29/2024 04:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 12/29/24 6:01 AM, WM wrote: >> On 28.12.2024 20:17, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 12/28/24 11:50 AM, WM wrote: >> >>> Every Natural Number is less that almost all other natural numbers, >>> so its %-tile of progress is effectively 0, but together they make up >>> the whole infinite set. >> >> All definable numbers (FISONs) stay below 1 %. Every union of "below 1 >> %" stays below 1 %. >> >> Regards, WM > > Since 0 is Less than 1, you are sort of correct, but that fact doesn't > prove your claim. > > The problem is that when you get to *ALL* you are now talking abut > infinite mathematics, which your logic just can't handle, because you, a > finite being, can't do all of an infinite set individually, so it isn;t > something you can talk about. Duns Scotus: infinity is in Spinoza: infinity is in Leibniz: infinity is in Most people point to some like these when saying "yes we can talk about infinity, mathematically". Since at least "Medievel times" The Aristotleans sort of have that it's not in, yet, it's approached in many ways, and Zeno gives reasonings why it is what it is. Then, there's also that after Russell that it's so that there are no "standard models" only "fragments and extensions: super-standard". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r-HbQZDkU0&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=29 "Logos 2000: natural infinities": in this podcast is explained "three natural infinities". The "effectively" infinite shows up in any consideration of the "negligence" of terms. Then about related rates and here the convolutive, symmetrical about 0 <-> oo, there's that the usual trolling here is rather lacking, yet the soft-ball straw-man fallacy isn't for making a "false rejection fallacy". So, according to your own reasoning about infinitary reasoning, either acknolwedge its greater surrounds and fuller dialectic or "it's trolls all the way down". Because here it's turtles, though an inverted turtle is a rather helpless creature, ....