the alefs, are not as easily apprehended as the beths. the beths, are easy to grok. it is easy to produce sets, such silly things, that have sizes corresponding to the beths. the alefs on the other hand are confusing, but more to the point they are indirect and marginal. the glossy misapproximations of large and sizeables leads to malleable and vaporous considerations which are complicated and differentially resproinged in each groaling. Between you and me, well, I'm not a believer and I'd rather spend my dzenxvrunx on something more ponderous. A series of qualifications of the quantity of the sizes of sets transmarginalized on the degree of their own unattainability or their imponderability! And then the brain-wrenching stomachaches induced by considering sets of sizes alef-sqrt(2)! Which, considering there's no general construction of sets with alef-sizes, though many a transfinite inductionist might claim that there are such things, I don't believe it. We're still trading here, in sets, herein sets.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Is it weird that this post reminds me of a Louis Carrol poem?
Post a Comment