"Barb Knox" <see@sig.below> wrote in message news://see-0604031047360001@192.168.1.2... > In article <wIHja.21660$5j.291636@twister.kc.rr.com>, "Poker Joker" > <Poker@wi.rr.com> wrote: > > > Without set theory, the following statment > > is NOT TRUE: > > > > "The number of natural numbers is infinite." > > Wrong. > > Assume that then the following is true: The number of natural numbers is > finite. > > Using the definition that "finite" means there is a natural number n such > that there is a 1-1 mapping between the items under question and the > sequence of natural numbers 1,2,...n, then the following is true: The > number of natural numbers is some natural number n > > Thus n is the largest natural number. > > But n+1 is larger and is also a natural number. RAA. >
Where've you been? Just woke up?
I agree that you have proven that THERE IS NO NUMBER OF NATURALS IN THE DOMAIN OF NATURALS. THATS WHY THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS FALSE.
Yoo-Hoo? McFly? Is anyone home? Yoo-hoo? Hello?
> I know in Phil-land this reasoning is somehow suspect, but in the rest of > mathematics it works just fine. > > -- > --------------------------- > | BBB b \ barbara minus knox at iname stop com > | B B aa rrr b | > | BBB a a r bbb | > | B B a a r b b | > | BBB aa a r bbb | > -----------------------------
