From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruuinf!hansz Thu Jan 16 17:19:29 EST 1992
Article 2621 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:1795 sci.logic:780 comp.ai.philosophy:2621 sci.math:5609
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruuinf!hansz
>From: hansz@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl (Hans Zantema)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.math
Subject: Re: Aleph-1 - What?
Message-ID: <5505@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl>
Date: 10 Jan 92 09:04:46 GMT
References: <1992Jan7.214019.6969@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <1992Jan8.170943.15772@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <1992Jan9.141029.13881@ulrik.uio.no> <1992Jan10.045819.27538@etl.go.jp>
Followup-To: sci.philosophy.tech
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of CS
Lines: 9

In article <1992Jan10.045819.27538@etl.go.jp> andreas@etl.go.jp (Andreas Knobel) writes:
>Sure it makes sense. For any cardinal aleph, you define its successor aleph^+
>as the least ordinal greater than aleph; since the ordinals are well ordered,
>this ordinal exists and is now called a cardinal.

No, this makes not sense. For any infinite aleph the least ordinal greater than 
aleph has the same cardinality as aleph.

					Hans Zantema.


