From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Feb 04 2002 - 16:58:23 MST
"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> > Furthermore, you cannot cut up any object composed of a finite number of
> > atoms. This isn't, as sometimes stated, because atoms are "too large".
> > Even if the object were composed of an infinite but countable number of
> > atoms, it wouldn't be enough.
> Since when did "infinite" become "countable"?
"Countably infinite" means aleph-null, sets like the even numbers and the
rationals. As opposed to "uncountable" sets such as the reals.
"Countable" means a one-to-one correspondence with the infinite set "one,
-- -- -- -- --
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:37 MST