|
|
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 04:13:07 +0900, "ooo" <farawfu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>"Lester Zick" <dontbother@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:219dp2t2qa2rapmdva898igb2lllp7ro6s@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 20:04:10 +0900, "ooo" <farawfu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Richard Tobin" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >news:en1e4p$10u6$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> In article <en10lj$ka1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ooo <farawfu@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >If real line is filled with points and each point is
>> >> >> >distinguished,then each point has difference from every other
>points.
>> >> >> >Therfore real line has void.
>> >>
>> >> >> Can you prove that? Why does the fact that every point is a finite
>> >> >> distance from every other point mean that there are gaps?
>> >>
>> >> >Because distanse between two points is finite (that is not necesarily
>> >> >realnumber), we can take point at a potition of their middle.
>> >>
>> >> What makes you think the distance is not necessarily a real number?
>> >> The distance between two points on the real line is their difference,
>> >> which is certainly a real. So the point in the middle is also a real
>> >> number.
>> >>
>> >I understand your explanation,and don't opose standerd theory.But
>standerd
>> >theory permits various interplitation about various problem.
>>
>> However it does look like you oppose standard spelling and grammar.
>>
>Yes,but it is not what I intended.
But it makes it very difficult to tell what you intended.
>> >For example,for existantiality about mathmatical object
>> >,formalism,platonism..
>> >The existance of paradox ,for example vanach- tarski paradox,bitali
>> >paradox..
>> >I think ,to avoid this sort of paradox ,finitismic aproach is helpful.
>> >Distance is real number and interval contain real number.But in this way
>we
>> >can number only countable (or finite) real number.
>> >We can deal with only countable (or finite) real number and things
>beyond
>> >that are depend on asumption,and axiom of choice is inebitable.
>> >Can you imagine from statement that every naturals have their next
>> >one,infinite entity of set of naturals?
>> >We can say that we cannot count all naturals, and cannot list up all
>> >naturals.
>> >In finite case we can list up all member ,but in infinite case we list up
>> >only finite members.
>> >And though we can do only that much,we say the amount is
>> >infinite ,and compare cardinarity of this set with that of anoter set,
>> >with asumption that every member is corespondant with each other .
>> >Why can we take such method without listing up all member ?
>> >
>> >> -- Richard
>> >> --
>> >> "Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
>> >> in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
>> >
>> >Regards
>>
>> ~v~~
>
>Regards
~v~~
|
|