3 ms·
And especially when we mix different categories. Like saying about any infinity as about an object is misleading, because it's rather a process
by novaRom 1y ago
And especially when we mix different categories. Like saying about any infinity as about an object is misleading, because it's rather a process
- Sharlin 1y agoInfinities (transfinite cardinals) in the sense used by the article are absolutely objects. We’re not talking about infinite sums or other sequences and their limits. (And limits aren’t really “processes” either – the limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, … is exactly 1, as a well-known example which nonetheless is controversial among people who don’t know what limits are.)
- random_ta 1y agoSure, if you accept reifying concepts into objects as valid. But that is a gateway to misery.
- Sharlin 1y agoWhat's the difference? How is the concept of a transfinite cardinal less of an object than, say, the concept of a set? Or a real number? All are well enough defined that you can do useful math with them, and that's really all that matters.
- revskill 1y agoObject in OOP ?
- Sharlin 1y agoMathematical objects, like numbers, sets, matrices, functions, …
- kbrkbr 1y agoI can think of N as a process in a sense, because I can keep adding a number. But I can't think of R as a process like this, specifically because there is no surjective mapping from N to R. How would you think of R as a process?