home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.math
- Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!ramsay
- From: ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
- Subject: Re: Infinity
- Message-ID: <1992Oct9.023301.24664@unixg.ubc.ca>
- Sender: news@unixg.ubc.ca (Usenet News Maintenance)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca
- Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
- References: <1367.2ac9ae4e@atlas.nafb.trw.com> <1992Oct8.194415.19999@news2.cis.umn.edu>
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:33:01 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <1992Oct8.194415.19999@news2.cis.umn.edu>
- nichols@math.umn.edu (Preston Nichols) writes:
- |An *actual* infinity, i.e. one which is "really there" all at once, is not
- |possible, and is IMO not strictly even conceivable.
-
- There is considerable disagreement about this, of course. IMO it is
- entirely possible, and conceivably true, that there are infinitely
- many stars in the universe "really there" all at once. We don't know
- that there are, of course; it seems likely that there are only
- finitely many.
-
- |infinities that I know about are either *potential* infinities (e.g.
- |the infinity of the positive integers, especially as presented in the
- |principle of induction), or are "place markers" (as when we integrate
- |from zero to infinity, as shorthand for a limiting process), or
- |both(?).
-
- Current mathematical practice permits one to talk about infinite sets
- implicitly as though they were completed "collections" of essentially
- the same type as finite sets. An infinite set just happens to be in
- 1-1 correspondence with a proper subset of itself; no special fuss is
- made in mainstream mathematics over the use of such sets.
-
- Keith Ramsay
- ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca
-