From: "Galchin, Vasili" <vigalchin@gmail.com>
To: Bas Spitters <spitters@cs.ru.nl>
Subject: Re: "Kantor dust"
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:35:41 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1LTG7G-0006Lh-8r@mailserv.mta.ca> (raw)
i.e. a well-defined algorithm exists to construct Cantor dust but the Cantor
dust cannot be constructed/built from the algorithm in a finite number of
steps. Hence, Cantor dust represents potential infinity rather than actual
infinity. This problem has nagged at me for a while.
Regards, Vasili
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Galchin, Vasili <vigalchin@gmail.com>wrote:
> I don't think it exists from a constructivist viewpoint because it has to
> be constructed in a finite number of steps.
>
> Vasili
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Bas Spitters <spitters@cs.ru.nl> wrote:
>
>> On Friday 30 January 2009 08:18:39 Galchin, Vasili wrote:
>> > Here is a definition of Cantor dust ....
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor_set.
>> >
>> > My question is from a constructivist viewpoint does this set
>> really
>> > exist and if so, why?
>>
>> Yes, it exists. In fact, it is a continuous image of 2^N.
>> It is Bishop compact, fan-like and compact overt (choose your taste of
>> constructivism).
>>
>> Bas
>>
>>
>
next reply other threads:[~2009-01-31 4:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-31 4:35 Galchin, Vasili [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-02-13 5:40 Vaughan Pratt
2009-02-12 9:05 Bas Spitters
2009-02-12 9:00 Prof. Peter Johnstone
2009-02-12 4:25 Toby Bartels
2009-02-12 4:10 Toby Bartels
2009-02-12 4:05 Toby Bartels
2009-02-11 23:51 Vaughan Pratt
2009-02-11 22:16 Bhupinder Singh Anand
2009-02-11 19:56 Greg Meredith
2009-02-11 17:53 Vaughan Pratt
2009-02-11 17:33 Prof. Peter Johnstone
2009-02-11 16:11 Michael Shulman
2009-02-11 15:55 Toby Kenney
2009-02-11 9:01 Vaughan Pratt
2009-02-11 9:01 Vaughan Pratt
2009-02-11 5:49 Vaughan Pratt
2009-02-11 0:13 Toby Bartels
2009-02-10 22:18 Prof. Peter Johnstone
2009-02-10 21:05 Greg Meredith
2009-02-10 19:04 Steve Stevenson
2009-02-10 9:54 Vaughan Pratt
2009-02-09 22:47 Prof. Peter Johnstone
2009-02-09 22:18 Dusko Pavlovic
2009-02-09 1:30 Toby Bartels
2009-02-09 0:31 Toby Bartels
2009-02-08 20:36 Steve Stevenson
2009-02-08 15:03 Paul Taylor
2009-02-08 14:51 Prof. Peter Johnstone
2009-02-08 11:56 gcuri
2009-02-07 22:58 Toby Bartels
2009-02-07 17:18 Prof. Peter Johnstone
2009-02-07 0:37 Vaughan Pratt
2009-02-05 21:44 Toby Bartels
2009-02-04 20:24 Vaughan Pratt
2009-02-03 17:59 Prof. Peter Johnstone
2009-02-02 23:43 Vaughan Pratt
2009-02-01 18:53 Prof. Peter Johnstone
2009-02-01 0:06 Vaughan Pratt
2009-01-31 10:25 spitters
2009-01-30 22:40 Galchin, Vasili
2009-01-30 21:52 Bas Spitters
2009-01-30 7:18 Galchin, Vasili
2009-01-30 7:18 Galchin, Vasili
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=E1LTG7G-0006Lh-8r@mailserv.mta.ca \
--to=vigalchin@gmail.com \
--cc=spitters@cs.ru.nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).