Re: how

On 4/30/24 9:00 AM, WM wrote:

Le 27/04/2024 à 19:38, Richard Damon a écrit :

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".

 

Right, and 2 or 5 are not assigned as a number for an ordinal type.

 Your ignorance is actually unlimited but your capability to learn is zero.
 

There is no set with an Ordinal Type of 2 or 5.

 What are (1, 2) and (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) or (17, 28, 55, 67, 100)?
 Regards, WM

Finite sets, not like the infinite sets we were otherwise talking about.