AbstractIn this paper, I suggest that infinite numbers are large finite numbers, and that infinite numbers, properly understood, are 1) of the structure omega + (omega* + omega)Ө + omega*, and 2) the part is smaller than the whole. I present an explanation of these claims in terms of epistemic limitations. I then consider the importance, part of which is demonstrating the contradiction that lies at the heart of Cantorian set theory: the natural numbers are too large to be counted by any finite number, but too small to be counted by any infinite number – there is no number of natural numbers.
Similar books and articles
A New Applied Approach for Executing Computations with Infinite and Infinitesimal Quantities.Yaroslav D. Sergeyev - 2008 - Informatica 19 (4):567-596.
Numerical Computations and Mathematical Modelling with Infinite and Infinitesimal Numbers.Yaroslav Sergeyev - 2009 - Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing 29:177-195.
The Problem of Infinite Matter in Steady-State Cosmology.Richard Schlegel - 1965 - Philosophy of Science 32 (1):21-31.
Numerical Point of View on Calculus for Functions Assuming Finite, Infinite, and Infinitesimal Values Over Finite, Infinite, and Infinitesimal Domains.Yaroslav Sergeyev - 2009 - Nonlinear Analysis Series A 71 (12):e1688-e1707.
Blinking Fractals and Their Quantitative Analysis Using Infinite and Infinitesimal Numbers.Yaroslav Sergeyev - 2007 - Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 33 (1):50-75.
A Conversation About Numbers and Knowledge.Charles Sayward - 2002 - American Philosophical Quarterly 39 (3):275-287.
What Are Numbers?Zvonimir Šikić - 1996 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 10 (2):159-171.
Counting Information: A Note on Physicalized Numbers. [REVIEW]Brian Rotman - 1996 - Minds and Machines 6 (2):229-238.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
No references found.