Le Thursday 29 November 2007 18:25:54 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
> Quentin Anciaux skrev:
> > Le Thursday 29 November 2007 17:22:59 Torgny Tholerus, vous avez écrit :
> >> There is a difference between "unlimited" and "infinite".  "Unlimited"
> >> just says that it has no limit, but everything is still finite.  If you
> >> add something to a finite set, then the new set will always be finite.
> >> It is not possible to create an infinite set.
> >
> > I'm sorry I don't get it... The set N as an infinite numbers of elements
> > still every element in the set is finite. Maybe it is an english
> > subtility that I'm not aware of... but in french I don't see a clear
> > difference between "infini" and "illimité".
> As soon as you talk about "the set N", then you are making a "closure"
> and making that set finite.  

Ok then the set R is also finite ? 

> The only possible way to talk about 
> something without limit, such as natural numbers, is to give a
> "production rule", so that you can produce as many of that type of
> objects as you want.  If you have a natural number n, then you can
> "produce" a new number n+1, that is the successor of n.

What is the production rules of the "no"set R ?

> >> So it is OK to use the word "unlimited".  But it is not OK to use the
> >> word "infinite".  Is this clear?
> >
> > No, I don't see how a set which have not limit get a finite number of
> > elements.
> It is not possible for "a set" to have no limit.  As soon as you
> construct "a set", then that set will always have a limit.  

I don't get it.

> Either you 
> have to accept that the set N is finite, or you must stop talking about
> "the set N".  It is enough to have a production rule for natural numbers.

I don't accept and/or don't understand.

> >> Another important word is the word "all".  You can talk about "all
> >> events".  But in that case the number of events will be finite, and you
> >> can then talk about "the last event".  But you can't deduce any
> >> contradiction from that, because that is forbidden by the type theory.
> >> And there will be more events after "the last event", because the number
> >> of events is "unlimited".
> >
> > If there are events after the last one, how can the last one be the last
> > ?
> The last event is the last event in the set of "all" events.  But
> because you have a production rule for the events, it is always possible
> to produce new events after the last event.  But these events do not
> belong to the set of "all" events.

There exists no last element in the set N.

> >> As soon as you use the word "all", you will
> >> introduce a limit - all up to this limit.  And you must then think of
> >> only doing conclusions that are legal according to type theory.
> >
> > o_O... could you explain what is type theory ?
> Type theory is one of the solutions of Russel's paradox.  You have a
> hierarchy of "types".  Type theory says that the "all quantifiers" only
> can span objects of the same "type" (or lower types).  When you create
> new objects, such that "the set of all sets that do not belong to
> themselves", then you will get an object of a higher "type", so that you
> can not say anything about if this set belongs to itself or not.  The
> same thing with "the set of all sets".  You can not say anything about
> if it belongs to itself.
> >> So the best thing is to avoid the word "all" (and all synonyms of that
> >> word).
> >
> > like everything ?
> Yes...   :-)

What you are saying seems like to me "So the best thing is to avoid words at 
all (and any languages)"... 

Quentin Anciaux

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to