Just how big is it?

[HalationEffect]

I can relate to your interest in Sartre, have read Descartes, not read the others (except Bertrand R, right?).
These days? While I have an itch to review the nihilist Nietzsche and maybe some Kafka, it's been Charles Bukowski for me.
;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bukowski
(I realize he seems to look like and act like a poet, but ... )

It's interesting (to me anyway) that often you need only scratch a poet, or indeed almost any really thoughtful writer, and you might find a philosopher lurking below the surface. Kurt Vonnegut, William Blake, and Dylan Thomas immediately spring to mind, just off the top of my head.

I'm not familiar with Charles Bukowski; the name rings only a faint, distant bell.

I really liked a quote of Bukowski's on the Wikipedia page, on the subject of writing (I'm a bit of a frustrated wanna-be writer myself) - "Somebody at one of these places [...] asked me: 'What do you do? How do you write, create?' You don't, I told them. You don't try. That's very important: not to try, either for Cadillacs, creation or immortality. You wait, and if nothing happens, you wait some more. It's like a bug high on the wall. You wait for it to come to you. When it gets close enough you reach out, slap out and kill it. Or if you like its looks you make a pet out of it".

I may have to read more about him... if I ever find the time! So much to learn, so many experiences to be had, so little time to do it all in. Mortality is annoying. All I ever wanted to be was a polymath(*), but that's a tall order in the time we're given.

Oh, and yes, the Russell I referred to in post #64 was indeed Bertrand.

(*) As Robert A. Heinlein said: "Specialisation is for insects".

[Qqmike]

I can relate to your interest in Sartre, have read Descartes, not read the others (except Bertrand R, right?).
These days? While I have an itch to review the nihilist Nietzsche and maybe some Kafka, it's been Charles Bukowski for me.
;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bukowski
(I realize he seems to look like and act like a poet, but ... )

[HalationEffect]

I only ever read a little of Nietzsche; just enough to realise that he didn't really 'speak to me'.

In my 20's I was more aligned with Descartes and Sartre, while these days I'm becoming more interested in the work of Wittgenstein, Russell and Spinoza.

[Qqmike]

Halation is saying stuff like, "I almost said it was a problem of epistemology - be thankful for small mercies!

Whew! So glad I missed your post when I posted above! Epistemology ... does that ever bring back memories of academic search-for-truth from my 20's! And, certainly, we won't be discussing the god Nietzsche ( I still like you N). Fact is, you reach a point (of age, of exhaustion) where what counts is what's operational:
Does it work?
Yep.
Good. Go with it.
Done deal. Today we found some truth amongst the noise.

[Qqmike]

S-R, "an argument over whether "equal" and "is defined to be" mean the same thing or not."

Yeah, ain't that the truth. Terminology, notation, convention, definitions.
I gotta get some sleep tonight! :-)

[HalationEffect]

Sure, if that's what you want to call an argument over whether "equal" and "is defined to be" mean the same thing or not. Basically, that's what you freakazoids got down to.

I almost said it was a problem of epistemology - be thankful for small mercies!

[kubicle]

Basically, that's what you freakazoids got down to.

We can also do a mean riverdance.

[SteveRiley]

I just knew it was going to be a problem of semantics in the end!

Sure, if that's what you want to call an argument over whether "equal" and "is defined to be" mean the same thing or not. Basically, that's what you freakazoids got down to.

[kubicle]

I seem to recall you can define your own compose key sequences, too...

You can, I now also have Compose+8+8 as ∞

[HalationEffect]

there is no default compose sequence for ∞, right?)

As far as I can tell, that's right. If there is a default compose sequence for a ∞, then I couldn't find it for all my googling.

[kubicle]

(Edit) Typing a lemniscate "∞" is really tricky! Hold down CTRL, SHIFT and U, then release the U while continuing to hold down CTRL and SHIFT, then type 221E, then release the CTRL and SHIFT.

I'm using a heavily modified xkb keymap, with ∞ mapped to 4th level 8-key [it looks like 8] (so I can type it with RightAlt (set as the 3rd-level modifier) + shift + 8, but forgot about it...it's obviously not a symbol I use every day

I seem to recall you can define your own compose key sequences, too...but never tried that (there is no default compose sequence for ∞, right?)

[HalationEffect]

Yep, that's where the exploding heads happen - with the notion that a subset of a set can be of the same size as that set. It's really counter-intuitive.

[Qqmike]

>> if you compare the infinite set of positive integers with the infinite set of positive even integers, the first set contains every number that is within the second set, but it also contains other numbers too, therefore it is, in that sense "bigger".

The second set is a subset of the first set, yes, yet the two sets are the same (infinite) "size"; that is, they have the same cardinal number, each is just countably infinite (in "size"). Proof is trivial: Define the bijective mapping from the first set to the second by
x |--> 2x

[HalationEffect]

"One infinity is bigger than another?? "

Am I being baited?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_number

There are infinitely many infinities (cardinal numbers).

Hehe, again we have a case of "layman's abhorrent way of expressing a complex idea in a simplified form".

What I mean is, if you compare the infinite set of positive integers with the infinite set of positive even integers, the first set contains every number that is within the second set, but it also contains other numbers too, therefore it is, in that sense "bigger".

[Qqmike]

"One infinity is bigger than another?? "

Am I being baited?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_number

There are infinitely many infinities (cardinal numbers).