I can't give an opinion but you have put some work into it to your credit. — Mark Nyquist
I think it's clear that one cannot count to infinity So one cannot say that x is an infinite sequence of numbers just because it goes on forever. — Philosopher19
How would a difference in size be established between two sets when there is no counting of the number of items in the sets involved? — Philosopher19
If there is counting involved, how has one reached an infinite number of items? — Philosopher19
See Cantor's diagonal argument.If infinity is a quantity, how is it more than one different quantity? — Philosopher19
By bijection. See Open Logic Ch.4. — Banno
"Counting", and ill-defined notion, is not involved in bijection, although "enumeration", a well-defined notion, is. — Banno
See Cantor's diagonal argument. — Banno
Is it that Philosopher19 has a picture of infinity such that, since one cannot count to infinity, one cannot have a grasp of infinity?A one to one to correspondence implies a count of one side compared to the other. But infinity is not reached or exhausted and cannot be counted to — Philosopher19
No doubt, even if 1, 2, 3, 4 goes on forever, an infinite number of numbers will never be reached. — Philosopher19
...infinity minus one million which is meaningless and undefined. — Mark Nyquist
If you start with a set of integers 1 to a million and another set of integers one to infinity and pair one to one up to a million then the set of infinity unpaired is infinity minus one million which is meaningless and undefined. — Mark Nyquist
Is it that Philosopher19 has a picture of infinity such that, since one cannot count to infinity, one cannot have a grasp of infinity? — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.