# Re: TM Tape is Always Finite

**From:** Thomas Bushnell, BSG (*tb+usenet_at_becket.net*)

**Date:** 01/03/04

**Next message:**Pinaki Mitra: "Re: Complexity of computing normal subgroup"

**Previous message:**Arthur J. O'Dwyer: "Re: TM Tape is Always Finite"**In reply to:**Arthur J. O'Dwyer: "Re: TM Tape is Always Finite"**Next in thread:**Leonard Blackburn: "Re: TM Tape is Always Finite"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: 02 Jan 2004 21:44:29 -0800

"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <ajo@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

*> I can easily understand how some people don't "get" infinity. I
*

*> myself still don't quite "get" ordinal numbers, although I've got
*

*> the cardinals down pretty well now. :)
*

Eek. I find the ordinals far more comprehensible than cardinals;

maybe I've done too much set theory.

Thomas

**Next message:**Pinaki Mitra: "Re: Complexity of computing normal subgroup"

**Previous message:**Arthur J. O'Dwyer: "Re: TM Tape is Always Finite"**In reply to:**Arthur J. O'Dwyer: "Re: TM Tape is Always Finite"**Next in thread:**Leonard Blackburn: "Re: TM Tape is Always Finite"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]