On 28 Feb., 20:03, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I was of the opinion we agree. Looks like > I was wrong. I misinterpreted > > > Now, in standard terminology (where there > > is no such thing as a variable > > natural number) we have > > a natural number valued function of time > > (or of the number of FISs of d that "actually > > exist", an increasing function of time) > > m(t). It is trivial to see that there > > is an m(t) such that the "actually existing" > > line with index m(t), contains all > > "actually existing" FISs of d. > > WM: Exactly! > > I still do not understand why I cannot > take a simple natural number valued > function of time, say a(t) and set it > equal to m.
How can you call that "standard terminology". Who else says and thinks so? And do you really think so? When have you become that idea?
