Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Matheology S 162
Replies: 3   Last Post: Nov 29, 2012 3:26 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology S 162
Posted: Nov 29, 2012 3:26 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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

> On 28 Nov., 19:46, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:

> > So, your conclusion is that, for every n, the set {n,n+1} is finite?
> My conclusion is that for every set {1, ..., n} also the set {1, ...,
> n, n+1} is finite!

> > If so, surely we agree.  And from this, we infer that every set of
> > natural numbers is finite, er, how?

> Every set, that is formed by induction beginning with {1}, is finite.

The only set, S, that I know of which starts with 1 and is defined by
induction says that for every member, s, of S , s+1 is also a member.

But every finite ORDERED set can be shown to have a last member.

So WM claims existence of inductive sets which are not inductive.

> For every set of natural numbers we can prove that all numbers are
> finite, hence the set is finite (for completed infinity an infinite
> number would be required)

As a cardinality, perhaps, but not as a member.

But then WM has never been able to tell the difference between such
things anyway.

> and, moreover we can prove that there are
> (potentially) infinitely many numbers not in that set.

While there are an actual infinity of non-natural-number-things which
are not in the set of natural numbers, that in no way limits the number
of natural numbers which can be members of the set of actual natural
> But a real crackpot stamping with feet and shouting "there is the set
> containing all naturals" will impress some other crackpots. No one
> else.

While WM is certainly able to speak for "real" crackpots and from real
crackpotism, he is not competent to speak for anyone else.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum 1994-2015. All Rights Reserved.