Brent Meeker skrev:
> Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>> I have written some more about infinity, in the paper attached (3
>> pages), called Infinity Does Not Exist.
> Well it doesn't exist under the assumption that it doesn't exist. I actually
> agree with you that it doesn't exist - though not because it's *logically*
> impossible. I think what you've shown is that there are other consistent
> number systems - which just illustrates the point that what you get from
> logic and mathematics depends on what you take as axioms and rules of
> But the problem is that a lot of mathematics would become very difficult and
> convoluted if we didn't allow infinity (and infinitesimals). This doesn't
> bother physicists much because they are accustomed to regarding mathematics
> as an approximate model and only using as much "infinity" as seems useful.
When it concerns mathematics, I have developped a set of integers that I
myself call "unnatural numbers". An unnatural number U is an integer
that is bigger than every natural number N. And the inverse of an
unnatural number (1/U) is more close to zero than any real number. You
can count with these unnatural number in the same way as ordinary
integers. So you will have that U+1 is not equal to U, and N*N <<
sqrt(U), and so on.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at