Re: virus: Real World?
Tue, 21 Jan 97 13:32:04 GMT

Ken Boyd wrote:

> [I wrote:]
> > Yep, but it must be remembered that oo is not a number, it is a representation
> > of a number so huge that it cannot be written easily. Therefore, the above
> > equation /is/ true.
> I wish.
> I am aware of three different types of infinities, in my work. None of
> them denote what you are talking about.
> About the type we're *trying* to play with here:
> oo is *not* a real number, it is a nonnumeric element devised to be an upper
> bound to any real number [in particular, it violates the Archimedean
> principle for real numbers]. It is designed to emulate the behavior of
> arbitrarily large numbers in calculations. The arithmetic failures when
> dealing with oo result from ambiguous results with arbitrary large
> numbers in these calculations.

I would like to point out that I have fully recanted all and any statements
which I posted about infinity and calculations concerning such. The
original idea was developed during one of many drunken bouts, and I was
merely intrigued as to the validity.

I now understand a little more about the nature of infinity, and would
like to thank everyone for a clearer definition.