Positive Infinity forever

Ali Lloyd ali.lloyd at livecode.com
Mon May 23 10:35:39 CEST 2016


Having fairly recently done a PhD in set theory, I can confirm that the
independence of the continuum hypothesis has not been refuted!

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:50 AM Mick Collins <mickclns at mac.com> wrote:

> (Try again, apologies for accidentally sending)
> ... typo
> When you said
> " 2^AJ=A(J+1)"
>
> I wonder if you meant
> "2^AJ   >=   A(J+1)"
>
> To many that may seem like nit-picking, but it is a NIT. However, if you
> MEANT what you wrote, then it is a YUGE NIT. It would mean that someone
> (Halmos?) found an extension of ZFC that trumps (sorry) Cohen's
> independence of CH. Is that the case?
>
>
> > On May 22, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Mick Collins <mickclns at mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > Doc Hawk,
> > I'm envious that you took a course from Halmos, but I question what is
> probably a typo.
> >
> > "Dr. Hawkins" <dochawk at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well, which infinity?  aleph-naught (A0) is the count of the
> > integers/wholes/natural
> >
> > A1=2^A0, the count of the reals.
> >
> > For that mater 2^AJ=A(J+1)
> >
> > A1-A0=A1
> >
> > Aj^n=Aj
> >
> > A0 is also "countable"; A1 and higher are not.
> >
> >
> > Yes, I really took a course  on that, from the master himself (Halmos)
> >
> > -- Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
> (702) 508-8462
>
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>


More information about the use-livecode mailing list