Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2680 talk.philosophy.misc:1602 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!teknowledge-vaxc!sri-unix!garth!smryan From: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence Message-ID: <1923@garth.UUCP> Date: 22 Nov 88 00:48:41 GMT References: <1919@garth.UUCP> <2671@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Reply-To: smryan@garth.UUCP (Steven Ryan) Organization: INTERGRAPH (APD) -- Palo Alto, CA Lines: 34 >" Just a short note that is a mortal sin for a mathematician to say >" `arb***ry.' Penance usually is usually five Hail Davids. >" >" The word `infinite' only occurs before `set,' `infinite set,' where it has >" a very precise meaning. >" >" The correct term is `arbitrary.' > >Now it makes even more sense. Without wanting to start a jihad, but in most math and computer science, there is a real attempt to avoid the word `infinity' and `infinite' really is restricted to `infinite set.' That little thing that looks like a propellor is read as `unbounded': x -> oo, f(x) -> oo. `As x increases unbounded, f at x increases unbounded.' The problem is that `infinity' is such a transcendental kind of word, that any attempt to define it causes problem. Aleph-0 is an infinite set, but 2**aleph-0=aleph-1 is an even larger infinite set. If we try to define infinity as the largest possible set, then we are left with infinity=2**infinity. `Arbitrary' means the same, more or less, as `unbounded.' Finally, note that `unbounded' does not always mean infinite. If a Turing machine accepts, its tape is unbounded, but it must be finite. -- -- s m ryan +---------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+ | And they looked across the PDP7 and saw that it was idle and | OSF is the | | without users. They `said let there be code' and it was. | antiUnix. | +---------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+ There was a read and a write and it was the first memory cycle.