Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 152
Replies: 53   Last Post: Nov 19, 2012 4:49 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Uirgil Posts: 185 Registered: 4/18/12
Re: Matheology � 152
Posted: Nov 16, 2012 4:52 PM

In article
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 16 Nov., 16:13, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> > "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > > On 16 Nov., 13:58, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Nov 16, 5:46 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > >> > 1.  WM    Profil anzeigen   bersetzen in die Sprache:
> > >> > Deutsch bersetzt (Original anzeigen)
> > >> >   Weitere Optionen 16 Nov., 10:35

> >
> > >> > Newsgroups: sci.logic, sci.math
> > >> > Von: WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de>
> > >> > Datum: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 01:35:48 -0800 (PST)
> > >> > Lokal: Fr. 16 Nov. 2012 10:35
> > >> > Betreff: Matheology 152
> > >> > Antworten | Antwort an Autor | Weiterleiten | Drucken | Einzelne
> > >> > Nachricht | Original anzeigen | Entfernen | Diese Nachricht melden |
> > >> > Nachrichten dieses Autors suchen
> > >> > Matheology 152

> >
> > >> > Consider the following sequence of decimal numbers, consisting of
> > >> > digits 0 and 1

> >
> > >> > 01.
> > >> > 0.1
> > >> > 010.1
> > >> > 01.01
> > >> > 0101.01
> > >> > 010.101
> > >> > 01010.101
> > >> > 0101.0101
> > >> > ...

> >
> > >> > which, when indexed by natural numbers, yilooks like this:
> >
> > >> > 0_2 1_1 .
> > >> > 0_2 . 1_1
> > >> > 0_4 1_3 0_2 . 1_1
> > >> > 0_4 1_3 . 0_2 1_1
> > >> > 0_6 1_5 0_4 1_3 . 0_2 1_1
> > >> > 0_6 1_5 0_4 . 1_3 0_2 1_1
> > >> > 0_8 1_7 0_6 1_5 0_4 . 1_3 0_2 1_1
> > >> > 0_8 1_7 0_6 1_5 . 0_4 1_3 0_2 1_1
> > >> > ...

> >
> > >> > What is the limit of the sequence of the sets of indexes on the left
> > >> > hand side?

> >
> > >> A set.
> >
> > > The empty set.
> >
> > Wrong: and you even agree that it is wrong.

>
> Of course it is wrong, but it is a necessary requirement of set
> theory.

Being wrong is only necessary in WM's version of a set theory, not in
any sane set theory.

Date Subject Author
11/16/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12 William Hughes
11/16/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12 LudovicoVan
11/16/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12 Uirgil
11/16/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12 LudovicoVan
11/16/12 Uirgil
11/16/12 William Hughes
11/16/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 William Hughes
11/17/12 trj
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 William Hughes
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 William Hughes
11/17/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/17/12 William Hughes
11/18/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/18/12 William Hughes
11/18/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/18/12 William Hughes
11/18/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/18/12 William Hughes
11/18/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/18/12 Vurgil
11/18/12 Vurgil
11/18/12 Vurgil
11/19/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/19/12 Vurgil
11/18/12 Vurgil
11/19/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/19/12 Vurgil
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 trj
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/17/12 Virgil
11/18/12 gus gassmann