Sujet : Re: Replacement of Cardinality
De : FTR (at) *nospam* nomail.afraid.org (FromTheRafters)
Groupes : sci.mathDate : 19. Aug 2024, 21:55:52
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Peripheral Visions
Message-ID : <va0bgr$310d1$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
User-Agent : MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
Chris M. Thomasson formulated the question :
On 8/18/2024 2:15 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 08/18/2024 11:52 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/18/2024 1:16 AM, joes wrote:
Am Sat, 17 Aug 2024 13:39:52 +0000 schrieb WM:
Le 16/08/2024 à 20:11, joes a écrit :
Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 17:00:26 +0000 schrieb WM:
Le 16/08/2024 à 18:50, joes a écrit :
Am Fri, 16 Aug 2024 16:19:17 +0000 schrieb WM:
>
Taking steps only until the next unit fraction, you never reach 0.
Start from x = 0. The increase cannot be more than 1.
No, you were counting down from 1.
There we see that counting down to 0 requires dark numbers.
Counting down from infinity is not possible. Your "dark" numbers
are a nonstandard extension.
>
>
Yup. Counting down from infinity is moronic. No wonder why WM assumes
there is a place to start counting from, aka finite...
Hey, it was Cantor's idea first, ....
>
Do you even now how to make a Cantor Set Fractal?
Isn't there enough division in here already? :D
Re: Replacement of Cardinality
Re: Replacement of Cardinality
