| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<gcSdnXbOnO8L2lf7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 20:50:30 +0000 Subject: Re: Replacement of Cardinality (effective bounds) Newsgroups: sci.math References: <hsRF8g6ZiIZRPFaWbZaL2jR1IiU@jntp> <H5iV5HXUBwUzWtVKRZj7h4N2LdA@jntp> <ff390a80279179f6d2f4660ed19c150a88c787d6@i2pn2.org> <va4rcm$3soiv$1@dont-email.me> <maptLlB5uFyelg509mbdgWw1yGc@jntp> <980a0ec7476c9dc5823e59b2969398bd39d9b91d@i2pn2.org> <_lFM72wVqiPQLxO8Gf0IkBJtFhw@jntp> <va7hcv$f9up$1@dont-email.me> <kafvr8CJYuaf9fl7BCHPjU227oA@jntp> <8bd5624bc47bbca8d04773df845cca2b55435df0@i2pn2.org> <j0ajFuF2EBbwKeax-Yg698Bf090@jntp> <vad7jd$1g24f$1@dont-email.me> From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 13:50:28 -0700 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: <vad7jd$1g24f$1@dont-email.me> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <gcSdnXbOnO8L2lf7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 43 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-qq8MPeWsnQM04vrDsrVuFYMvHnxwo2lGe9Jc+Wgm3S+xPubFhNaUs/iB0GNy2mi/+Guxoo9EI+kr+oa!XAqluQl2zRmxyyVvBVxlDUVlQw/6dtPDROBdb8O43r3JAzDm1L+nB+Om+P9LauhH5VUrNd2v29Ii!xw== 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: 3454 On 08/24/2024 11:08 AM, FromTheRafters wrote: > WM has brought this to us : >> Le 23/08/2024 à 20:06, joes a écrit : >>> Am Fri, 23 Aug 2024 14:27:11 +0000 schrieb WM: >>>> Le 22/08/2024 à 16:19, FromTheRafters a écrit : >>>>> WM formulated the question : >>>> >>>>>> *If there is a complete chain*, then it has a last member. >>>>> Just as the last saucer completes the tea set? >>>> No, just as there is a border between populated and empty domains. >>> The unit fractions don’t reach 0. >> >> Of course not. Therefore they must cease before. > > Why must they cease at all? He can just axiomatize it so, saying that there's a rule. Or, imagine for example there's a mathematical cripple of sorts, he's got finite means. So, instead of more or less axiomatizing his accessibility to infinite induction, he has to cope with his limited means, so he makes models where there's an effective infinity and an effective infinitesimal, then also has that the analytical bridges go through, i.e. that the limit exists and has a well-defined sum. Let's call him A.P. So, on this world where most of the mathematical cripples simply axiomatize that their way is ordinary, making it regular this way, he confronts the otherwise paradoxes of mathematical infinity by staying away from them at all. Then you might call him AP or WM or any of these other finite-means retro-finitist howler-trolls of sorts that find their mirror images in, ..., finite-means retro-Russellian end-of-discussion sorts, yet, in a sense, his pastiche of pieces of broken mirror and the fetish of here a, ..., "complete chain", can be a model of closure in completion even though it leaves out many and most of the results in the middle, which one may aver that the other kind of "one of us" end-thinkers don't complete, anyways.