|
|
Re: Matheology § 198
Posted:
Jan 25, 2013 9:58 AM
|
|
On 25 Jan., 14:24, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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,
(Note this phrase: "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, ...
(Note that 1/9 is not actually existing as a decimal fraction.)
>
> > 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,
(One month after first Christmas after end of the world!)
> WM notes that N is not a FISON.-
That N which matheologians believe in!
Regards, WM
|
|
