Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 16:27:47 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:59:01 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
: : wrote:
:
: : Infinity measured in miles is approximately 1.6 times farther than infinity measured in meters.
:
: : OOps, I meant kilometers.
:
: : You haven't understood 'infinity' yet, have you?
: : What is mo no money in pesos or no money in USD?
:
: The latter. It can give you millions in undeserved credit and the opportunity
: to get stinking rich again.
:
: Since I have no money in USD, I am practically stinking rich?
: Gotta tell my bank ...
:
: No money in pesos gives you a few centavos in your
: hat while playing the cornet on a dusty street in Tijuana.
:
: ... while you, not having any money in pesos are playing in
: Tijuana. I should visit you there from my undeserved credits
: and photograph you with all the cameras I can buy now!
:
: But please, Wolfgang, don't give us another chance to underestimate you.
:
: You underestimate me no matter if I give you a chance.
:
: Surely you realize that Mr James was being facetious.
:
: He was plain wrong, not facetious. His math teacher's rotation
: in the grave would be enough to generate all the electricity
: a medium size town needs.
I shouldn't bother, but I'm going to call your bluff. Please tell us what the
first two infinite numbers are
"inifinity measured in miles" and "infinity measured in meters"
(or kilometers, or Planck constants, or sizes of the universe)
are all exactly the same.
For photography purposes any long enough distance has no
difference to infinity, no matter how you measure such
distances.
and why the second is larger than the first.
That you will have to ask the one who made the claim, a certain
", unless you want to sponsor me a mind
reading course.
Or were you talking about aleph-null and aleph-eins? In
which case --- no, they're not *numbers*, they are *sets*.
I
won't even ask you to prove (although it has been proven) that there is no
number between them.
That depends entirely on your choice of axioms and choice
of definition of Aleph-eins. If you define the latter as
the smallest infinite *set* larger than aleph-null, it's
by definition; if you define aleph-eins as the set of real
numbers, you need to prove the continuum hypothesis --- which
is a ... bit problematic, unless you have fun with additional
axioms.
And between them the two *sets* aleph-null and aleph-eins
still have infinite numbers, uncountable infinite numbers,
to be exact. :-)
-Wolfgang