Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Re: CANTORS PROOF IS JUST THE INDUCTIVE STEP!
Posted:
Nov 1, 2012 5:13 AM


On Thu, 1 Nov 2012, Hercules ofZeus wrote:
> > > > > INDUCTION RULE: P(1) & P(n)>P(S(n)) > ALL(n) P(n) > > > > > > You're wrong. The induction rule is: > > > > P(1) & ALL(n)(P(n) > P(S(n))) > ALL(n) P(n). > > > > > OK, in my new logic forall is variable function that uses the double > > > instantiaion rule. > > > > > p(1) ^ N(p(N)>p(s(N)) > N(p(N)) > > What's N? > > > > > CAPS = VARIABLES > > CAPS is a variable? > > > > > lower = terms / function terms. i.e. the scope of N(...) is wider > > > than the same variable name (...N...) > > > > Huh? > > > > > Just my new high order logic syntax forwww.microPROLOG.com! > > Wow, a high order of junk logic. > > Hey if you don't like the final frontier in mathematics.. > Will this be the your final affrontier of mathematics?
> p(1) ^ N(p(N)>p(s(N)) > > N(p(N)) > > I gain no benefit by sharing.. > 'Cause you've nothing to share.
But if you really do need a friend with benefits, should I benefit you my blocking your posts instead of beamusing myself at your expense?



