Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s math |
On 10/8/24 5:42 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> wrote:On 10/7/24 7:44 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> wrote:On 10/7/24 7:13 AM, joes wrote:Am Mon, 07 Oct 2024 10:13:21 +0200 schrieb WM:On 06.10.2024 17:55, joes wrote:Am Sun, 06 Oct 2024 17:26:07 +0200 schrieb WM:On 06.10.2024 16:52, Alan Mackenzie wrote:WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> wrote:
Actually infinite means infinite, which doesn’t change when youActual means all, but not more. This implies a last before ω..In actual infinity, there is no last 9 (that would not beThis idea of time may be what misleads the mathematicallyThat is true even in actual infinity. We can add 9 to
less adept into believing that 0.999... < 1.
0.999...999 to obtain 9.999...999. But multiplying 0.999...999
by 10 or, what is the same, shifting the digits 9 by one step
to the left-hand side, does not increase their number but
leaves it constant: 9.99...9990. 10*0.999...999 = 9.99...9990
= 9 + 0.99...9990 < 9 + 0.999...999 ==> 9*0.999...999 < 9 as
it should be.
infinite).
The infinity means an end cannot be determined. It is produced
by the dark numbers.
add or subtract a finite number.
Actual infinity doesn't exist for us finite beings.
English language tip: The "Actually" in that sentence was not attached to
the word "infinite", it meant something like "This is really true:".
But all his reference to the word "Actually" are part of his trying to
define the term "Actual Infinity".
OK, maybe you're right, there. The semantics are a bit ambiguous. Joes
is not a native English speaker. Apologies to Joes.
Anyhow, what do you mean when you say that "actual infinity doesn't
exist"? I think we established over the weekend that for a mathematical
entity not to exist, it must cause a contradiction. Or something like
that.
So what contradiction would the existence of actual infinity cause?
It implies that there exists a first positive real, rational number or
unit fraction for one (at least the way WM uses it).
Whoa! There're rather a lot of argument steps missing there. Just
because WM asserts the existence of both actual infinity and a first
strictly positive unit fraction doesn't mean the one implies the other..
It does in his logic, which is all that matters to him.
Yes, it is a wrong conclusion, but that error is based on his initial
assumption that something could be used that isn't available as a
understandable entity to us finite beings.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.