On 1 Mrz., 15:50, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 2:47 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > On 1 Mrz., 13:14, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 1, 12:19 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 28 Feb., 23:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 28, 11:29 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > I think that there is a variable maximum or limit that depends (among > > > > > > others) on t. > > > > > > So what did the statement > > > > > > There is no m(t). > > > > > > mean? > > > > > We cannot fix it in the sense required for "there is" of current > > > > mathematics. > > > > So at a given time t, > > > m has a value which is a > > > natural number, but we cannot > > > assign this natural number > > > to a function. > > > Can you find a largest natural number in your personal environment? > > Can you determine the largest natural number that your computer is > > able to compute? > > Well, I don't know the values, but I certainly can assume > they exist and do not change if time does not change. So I can > have a(t), the largest number in my personal environment > at time t, and b(t) the largest number that my computer > is able to calculate at time t. (I don't suppose that > the largest number that a given computer is able to > compute can change,
That depends on the abbreviations the user invents (Ackermann, Knuth).
> but certainly the computer > referred to as "my computer" can change). > I only need assume that the value of m exits and > does not change if time does not change and then > I can assign the value of m to a function of time
The argument is not only time. But in general your description is acceptable.
So what is your true opinion about this potential infinity which, contrary to finished infinity, is not self-contradictory and allows for all calculations required in analysis?