🚀 go-pugleaf

jon murray wrote:
> 
> Greg d. Moore wrote:
> 
> snip
> >
> > All Number set:   1 1.1 1.11 1.111 1.1111 1.11111 ...... up to 2.
> > Integers          1  2   3    4     5      6   up to infinity.
> >
> snip
> 
> > In other words, it takes an infinite number of "counters" to get from
> > 1.0 to 2.0.  So, it must take a BIGGER infinite number of counters to
> > get from 1.0 to infinity.0.
> 
> Yep, makes sense (and it will give me something other than tax to think
> about as I drift off to sleep tonight), but I can't believe in bigger or
> smaller infinities. I imagine that this makes me a mathematical heathen.
> 

	Actually, before I get any MORE email from people correcting my proof,
I have to say the second half is incorrect.  I attempted to use a couple
of short-cuts.  One was not making it clear I meant to include
irrationals in my list, not just rationals.  

	The second though was I did set it up incorrectly.

	So, to all those mathematicians out there, I'm sorry.  I'll try not to
post mathematical proofs when I'm so tired. :-)

	(In general, what the result is true, even if I didn't prove it
correctly. :-)

> Jon
> 
> *********
> My address has been spam-protected.
> It's 'netconnect' & I live in Australia (.au)
> *********

-- 
Greg D. Moore	President  	mooregr@greenms.com
Green Mountain Software		http://www.greenms.com/
518-273-8602