Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
That was why. It was during the time he went from some obscure club to Leicester, then to Wolves, all in the space of a few months. It was all downhill from there though.
Probably, but I think I missed that episode. Certainly he played for Fergie during his Aberdeen years.
That was why. It was during the time he went from some obscure club to Leicester, then to Wolves, all in the space of a few months. It was all downhill from there though.
BTW you might recall a recent thread regarding a quote from Jesus, in which you mentioned that the parable about My Fathers mansions had some connection to the system of finite and infinite numbers , could you expand in in Readers Digest terms what you meant as I was interested in your concept ?
He was talking about Cantor's theory of transfinite sets. Essentially it shows that there are different "orders" of infinity, the lowest being so called "countable" sets, whose elements can be matched one-to-one with the set of positive integers.
Infinite proper subsets of positive integers, for example squares 1, 4, 9, .. can be matched in this way, as can the set of all rational fractions (m/n with m and n both integers), and many other sets.
This bamboozles many people, because many of these sets appear to be either sparser than the integers, i.e. proper subsets of them (the 1, 4, 9 example), or vastly more prolific (in the case of fractions) and include _them_ as a proper subset (1/1, 2/1, ..).
However, some sets cannot be put in one-to-one correspondence with the integers, and Cantor proved that the set of all real numbers was an example.
In the context of Cantor's theory, the "size" of an infinite set is called its cardinality, and the sequence of cardinality for increasing orders of infinity is denoted by the Hebrew letter alpha - The positive integers have cardinality aleph0, the real numbers aleph1, and so on. A cardinality can be identified as a power of the preceding one, e.g. formally aleph1 = 2^aleph0.
For a long while people wondered if this was the complete sequence of possible cardinalities, or whether there were "intermediate" ones. But in the 1960s a guy called Cohen showed that this was undecidable, i.e. demonstrably unprovable using the existing axioms of set theory. But I think most "mainstream" axiomatic set theories in use today assume the sequence is complete.
Not surprisingly, despite being a sound as a bell, Cantor's theory generates more kookery than any other maths topic on the internet (with the possible exception of the endless "Is 0.999.. the same as 1?" debate).
Sadly Cantor himself went a bit loopy in later life, although whether pondering on infinite sets was a contributory factor I don't know. But like Darwin, he certainly faced some hostility and ridicule when his theory was published.
BTW you might recall a recent thread regarding a quote from Jesus, in which you mentioned that the parable about My Fathers mansions had some connection to the system of finite and infinite numbers , could you expand in in Readers Digest terms what you meant as I was interested in your concept ?
Leave a comment: