[r-t] Re: Extension, etc.
dfmorrison at gmail.com
Mon Nov 15 13:58:45 UTC 2004
Sorry to distract from the main subject of discussion here for
something hairsplitting, but....
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:04:07 -0000, Robin Woolley <robin at robinw.org.uk> wrote:
> ii) The MC says "in most cases an extension that works for two stages of
> extension works for an indefinite number of stages". The fact that we have
> been given one example of where it doesn't work suggests that there are
> others - dare I suggest an uncountably finite set.
What does "uncountably finite" mean?
1) is it just something humoursly non-sensical, a mathematical joke
for saying "well, it's not infinite, but it's big and complex enough
that no one can in practice count it"?
2) a typo for "uncountably infinite" -- that seems unlikely, since it
would at first thought appear that there are probably only a countably
infinite set of methods possible (and only a finite set for stages
below any given stage, for example a billion bells or fewer)
3) or something else entirely?
Don Morrison <dfm at mv.com>
More information about the ringing-theory