In article <f654944d-8db8-4ee2-aa30-6dbfc7854c4d@fn10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> 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?
Almost any other termnology is more standard that WM's.
And everyone here other than WM thinks so.
People, speaking and thinking in English, may get ideas, but they do not become ideas, at least in English. Do they do so in German? --
