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.
|
|