Virgil
Posts:
4,483
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Matheology � 038
Posted:
Jun 17, 2012 3:58 PM
|
|
In article
<f6d9fd2d-ee7b-49c3-b1e1-ddc7266f0990@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 17 Jun., 18:03, PotatoSauce <kiwisqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 17, 2012 9:00:56 AM UTC-4, WM wrote:
> >
> > > It is basic to all mathematics. It is of utmost interest.
> >
> > To whom?
> >
> > > You only
> > > have not yet perceived how important it is.
> >
> > You are not qualified to decide what is important in mathematics or not.
>
> What qualifies you?
His statement does not require that he be qualified, but only to be able
to tell that you are not. One may well be able to tell that something is
wrong without being able to tell precisely what is right.
After all you yourself claim the former while being obviously unable to
do the alter.
> >
> > The set of even numbers are not defined as
> >
> > "2, 4, 6 ,8 ..."
>
> You are in error. The above is one of many definitions.
Then how is it that -2, and -4, and so on, are also even NUMBERS but not
members of the set which you claim is so defined?
> >
> > They are defined as the subset of the natural numbers that are divisible by
> > 2.
>
> That is another definition. So I know two, you know only one. Do you
> mean that would qualify you?
What WM "knows" about it is trivially false, as noted above.
> >
> > The sentence I wrote above is a "finite" definition. It is made up of
> > finitely many strings. From that definition, you can determine whether "3"
> > is an even number or not.
>
> You seem to have missed the fact that this definition
> "2, 4, 6, ..."
> als is a finite definition.
Not of the set of even numbers, as claimed.
--
|
|
