|
|
Re: Matheology § 198
Posted:
Jan 25, 2013 8:24 AM
|
|
On Jan 25, 10:01 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 25 Jan., 09:24, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 9:02 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > On 25 Jan., 01:27, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Outside of Wolkenmukenheim it is clear that an infinite set can be the
> > > > union
> > > > of finite sets.-
>
> > > But in mathematics it is clear that a strictly increasing sequence
> > > does not contain its limit. Each one of infinitely many terms fails to
> > > reach the limit. And this case is given by the sequence of finite
> > > initial segments of natural numbers.
>
> > From which it follows that the collection of all natural numbers
> > (which contains only finite natural numbers)
> > is not a finite initial segment of natural numbers.
>
> > So N is not a FISON.
>
> N, if actually existing, is the limit, the set of all natural numbers.
> Similarly, 1/9 is not an element of the sequence 0.1, 0.11, 0.111, ...
>
> The limit 1/9 differs from all terms of the sequence, not only from
> every term.
> The limit N differs from all FISONs, not only from every FISON.
January 25, 2013, WM notes that N is not a FISON.
|
|
