www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=brain+burp+rounding

BY : Bill Westfield email (remove spam text)

It seems that it all hinges on what infinity means, and since people like

Feynman and Hawking are having trouble with calculations where infinity

pops in, I'm not bothered that it causes me trouble.

Infinity is fun. Not very intuitive, but fun. The sort of infinity we're

talking about here is pretty well understood, mathematically. Someone said

recently here that "infinity < (2 * infinity)" Sorry, that's wrong.

infinity = 2*infinity

Furthermore, you have bits like the number of integers is the same as the

number of real numbers (infinity, aleph-null (?), "countably infinite"), but

the number of irrational numbers is larger ("uncoutably infinite")

Can you show me something by which this is a consequence?

Something physical, that requires this to be true?

Physical things don't require infinity to work... See previous message

about atomic diameters...

Or is this just a peculiarity of the current rule set.

Sure. That's "all."

BillW

--

http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different

ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

In reply to: Your message of Sat, 2 Jun 2001 22:38:01 -0500

See also: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=brain+burp+rounding