From pycyn@aol.com Mon Jun 05 07:50:36 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18575 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2000 14:49:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 5 Jun 2000 14:49:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo13.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.3) by mta2 with SMTP; 5 Jun 2000 14:49:00 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.9.) id a.e8.545a3f8 (4586) for ; Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:48:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 10:48:49 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Transfinite ordinals To: lojban@egroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com In a message dated 00-06-05 03:18:11 EDT, lojbab writes: << We have always assumed that an ordinal could be expressed by adding the ordinal suffix moi to a number (cardinal or otherwise - Lojban does not worry about the semantics). >> As pier points out, in the transfinites the correlation breaks down: there are infinitely many ordinals that correspond in a natual way to aleph null -- omega, omega+1, ... . And just in the cardinals, the aleph series may not be enough -- barring the axiom of choice, the cardinality of the continuum is not an aleph -- or at least not any specific one, aleph one, say. I suggest that the solution is just to take on the symbolism already in place, alephs and omegas and what not, for which lojban is already equipt.