|
|
Re: Re: Matheology § 162
Posted:
Nov 28, 2012 1:20 PM
|
|
In article <6f838fa9-0ae5-4949-8cb9-ea4b1ca21d74@bq2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
>On 28 Nov., 16:13, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 10:59=A0am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>> > On 28 Nov., 13:48, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Nov 28, 2:43=A0am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>> > > > Induction proves also: Every set of natural numbers is finite.
>> > > > Why do you overlook this simple proof?
>>
>> > > No, what induction proves is that every set of natural numbers
>> > > with a largest number is finite.
>>
>> > And induction proves that every set of natural numbers has a largest
>> > number. For every finite n also n + 1 is finite
>>
>> Look! Over There! A Pink Elephant!
>>
>> >and the set containing
>> > both, n and n + 1 ist finite too.
>>
>> There is of course no such thing as
>> =A0"the set containing both n and n+1".
>
>Here it is: {n, n+1}
That is *a* set containing both n and n+1. It is not *the* set containing
them, because there are many sets containing them. Some of these are
{n, n+1, 17*(n+6)}
{n, n+1, n-1}
{n, n+1, n-1, 0}
{n, n+1, n-1, 0, pi, e, sqrt(42)}
>Have you meanwhile convinced yourself that analysis is capable
>expanding infinity
"Expanding infinity"? What on Earth is that supposed to mean? In math,
one is supposed to define their terms.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of 2
|
|
