Theory of Functions

Abstract

THE criticism on the passage quoted from p. 3 of the book by Profs. Harkness and Morley (NATURE, February 23, p. 347) turns on the fact that, in dealing with number divorced from measurement, the authors have used the phrase “an infinity of objects” without an explicit statement of its meaning. I am not sure that I understand the passage in their letter which refers to this point; but it seems to me to imply that the distinction between “finite” and “infinite” is one which does not require definition. This is not the only accepted view. It is not, for instance, the view taken in Herr Dedekind's book, “Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen.” As regards the opening sentences of Chapter xv., the authors have apparently misunderstood the point of my objection. With the usually received definition of convergence of an infinite product, Π(1-α_n), if convergent, is different from zero. So far as the passage quoted goes, Π(1-α_n) might be zero; and it is therefore not shown to be convergent, if the usual definition of convergence be assumed. As to the passage quoted from p. 232, I must express to the authors my regret for having overlooked the fact that the particular rearrangement, there made use of, has been fully justified in Chapter viii. Whether Log x is or is not, at the beginning of Chapter iv., defined by means of a string and a cone, will be obvious to any one who will read the whole passage (p. 46, line 16, to p. 47, line 9) leading up to the definition.