Re: how

On 4/27/24 10:54 AM, WM wrote:

Le 26/04/2024 à 21:10, Richard Damon a écrit :

On 4/26/24 1:06 PM, WM wrote:

Le 26/04/2024 à 04:08, Richard Damon a écrit :

On 4/25/24 3:51 PM, WM wrote:

Le 24/04/2024 à 20:08, FromTheRafters a écrit :

WM explained :

Le 24/04/2024 à 12:49, FromTheRafters a écrit :

Richard Damon wrote :

>

Of course, if you logic tries to make that transfinite value finite because that is all it can handle, your system just blows up in your face.

>
IMO, it might be best not to think of it as a value at all.

>
Cantor called it a number.

>
A number representing an order type.

>
like 2 or 5.

>
No, because 2 or 5 were FINITE numbers, not transfinite numbers.

>
Learn what an order type is according to Cantor.
>

Maybe you should. "Order Types" are not "Numbers" but properties of how you order the set of numbers.

 Your ignorance is actually unlimited.
Cantor created and defined these notions: Den Ordnungstypus einer wohlgeordneten Menge F nennen wir die ihr zukommende "Ordnungszahl".
 Regards, WM

Right, and 2 or 5 are not assigned as a number for an ordinal type. The "Numbers" assigned to the Ordinal Type for the Natural Numbers is w, the value that represents the "size" of the Natural Numbers.
There is no set with an Ordinal Type of 2 or 5.
The key point is that numbers like w are not normal values that you can get to by finite counting, which seems to be the only type of numbers you understand.
Thus, your logic just can not actually handle any of the transfinite numbers, as they have values that you logic just can not represent, which is what creates your "darkness", as to see them requires you to admit that there must be more than you logic allows.