Re: Open universe? [Was "expansion of the universe"]

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

Jack Uretsky wrote:
>         Sorry, John.  That is only one way of looking at it.

Where does "sorry" come from?
As far as I can tell, my reasoning was sound
and my conclusion was valid, and not in dispute.
If somebody has another way of looking at it
that comes to the SAME conclusion, the more the
merrier.

> ...  Robinson's work gave
> rise to what is known as "non-standard analysis"

Should I have prefaced my statements with a disclaimer
that I was adhering to the standard analysis?  I've
often been accused of being too unconventional;  this
is probably the first time I've been accused of being
too conventional.  (I'll try not to let it happen again :-)

> ("dx", called a "dibbl", is a
> quantity so small that its square is zero).

Do dibbls and their friends allow us to calculate
what we get if we take something loosely described
as zero and multiply it by something loosely described
as infinite?  I claim that the answer
depends on details, and could be zero (since zero
times anything is zero) or could be infinite (since
infinity times anything is infinite) or could be
anything in between.  If non-standard analysis can
give a provably-correct unambiguous answer as to the
size of the universe at t=0, please share it with us.