 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What happens to objects smaller than the Plank length?
>
> Mu.
>
>
> The question is meaningless.
...as is my humour, apparently...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:00:39 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> What happens to objects smaller than the Plank length?
>>
>> Mu.
>>
>>
>> The question is meaningless.
>
> ...as is my humour, apparently...
I found the entire thing to be funny - and have shared it. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>
I found Invisible's summary to be a bit confusing, and also seemed to
have a semi-important error, so here's another quick summary:
The Aleph numbers are "cardinals" which means they represent the size of
sets. Aleph_0 is the first infinite cardinal, which is equal to the
size of the set of natural numbers. Aleph_1 is the next size that a set
can have which is larger than Aleph_0. Beth_1 is the size of the set of
all real numbers, and it can be proven that the size of this set is a
"larger infinity" than the size of the set of all natural numbers (so
Beth_1 > Aleph_0). It cannot be proven by standard set theory whether
or not Beth_1 = Aleph_1. Put another way, it is impossible to prove
whether or not there are sets which have a size between that of the
natural numbers and that of the real numbers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/6/2010 10:01 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Mike Raiford wrote:
>>
>
> I found Invisible's summary to be a bit confusing, and also seemed to
> have a semi-important error, so here's another quick summary:
>
> The Aleph numbers are "cardinals" which means they represent the size of
> sets. Aleph_0 is the first infinite cardinal, which is equal to the size
> of the set of natural numbers. Aleph_1 is the next size that a set can
> have which is larger than Aleph_0. Beth_1 is the size of the set of all
> real numbers, and it can be proven that the size of this set is a
> "larger infinity" than the size of the set of all natural numbers (so
> Beth_1 > Aleph_0). It cannot be proven by standard set theory whether or
> not Beth_1 = Aleph_1. Put another way, it is impossible to prove whether
> or not there are sets which have a size between that of the natural
> numbers and that of the real numbers.
Ok, that makes sense to me now. Yeah, I think my original post was a bit
mistaken ... I realized pretty quickly after Andrew's posting what it
meant, but I don't quite think I had the right words to express what I
was thinking.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 06.07.2010 14:30, schrieb Invisible:
> My personal favourit:
>
> 99 bottles of TNT standing on the wall,
> 99 bottles of TNT standing on the wall,
> And if one of those bottles should accidentally fall,
> There's be no more bottles of TNT, and no more ****ing wall.
From all I know, TNT doesn't come bottled, nor does it explode from
just accidentally falling.
Unfortunately, "99 bottles of Nitroglycerine standing on the wall"
doesn't quite fit the rhythm...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 11:32:36 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Am 06.07.2010 14:30, schrieb Invisible:
>
>> My personal favourit:
>>
>> 99 bottles of TNT standing on the wall, 99 bottles of TNT standing on
>> the wall, And if one of those bottles should accidentally fall, There's
>> be no more bottles of TNT, and no more ****ing wall.
>
> From all I know, TNT doesn't come bottled, nor does it explode from
> just accidentally falling.
>
> Unfortunately, "99 bottles of Nitroglycerine standing on the wall"
> doesn't quite fit the rhythm...
I consider it 'artistic license'. Just go with it. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
