Virgil
Posts:
870
Registered:
7/27/09
|
|
Re: Another AC anomaly?
Posted:
Dec 18, 2009 9:22 PM
|
|
In article
<3678078d-7bde-4457-896a-2d55ee158088@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 17 Dez., 22:52, Quaestor <quaes...@qqq.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > For paths and initial segments to contain and to be is the same. In
> > > > > fact:
> > > > > {1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U ... = {1, 2, 3, ...}
> > > > > and also
> > > > > {1} U {1, 2} U {1, 2, 3} U ... U {1, 2, 3, ...} = {1, 2, 3, ...}.
> >
> > > > As usual you confuse to be an element and to be a party of...
> >
> > > I am concerned with numbers. Your absurd distinctions are irrelevant.
> >
> > They are neither absurd nor irrelevant to mathematics.
>
> Ok, then you have a different idea of mathematics. In common
> mathematics, numbers can be defined by digit sequences.
Not all of them.
Negatives require a negative sign , which is not a digit.
Decimal numbers reqire a decimal point, which is not a digit.
In fact, the only numbers that can be defined by digits alone are the
non-negative integers
> >
>
> > > Either N exists or not. If yes, then it is the union of all natural
> > > numbers as well as the union of all initial segments of the ordered
> > > set of all natural numbers as well as the union of all these and
> > > itself, because
> >
> > > {1, 2, 3, ...} U {1, 2, 3, ...} = {1, 2, 3, ...}
> >
> > > If you see that this equation is true, then you acknowledge my
> > > argument.
> >
> > On the contrary, that equation is true
>
> Fine, Virgil, that is one big step to comprehension.
But however hard WM tries, he has not what is needed to attain it.
|
|
