Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
Replies:
7
Last Post:
Mar 5, 2013 4:24 PM




Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
Posted:
Mar 4, 2013 6:27 AM


William Hughes <wpihughes@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mar 3, 10:56 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote: >> On 3 Mrz., 17:36, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Mar 3, 12:41 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote: >> >> > > Why don't you simply try to find a potentially infinity set of natural >> > > numbers (i.e. excluding matheological dogmas like "all prime numbers" >> > > or "all even numbers") that is not in one single line? >> >> > the potentially infinite set of every natural number >> is always finite  up to every natural number. >> If you don't like that >> recognition, try to name a number that does not belong to a FISON. >> This set is always in one line. You should understand that every >> number is in and hence every FISON is a line of the list. > > Indeed, but the question is whether there is one single line of the > list that contains every FISON. We know that such a line > cannot be findable. There is the unfindable, variable, > a different one for each person, line l_m. However, calling > l_m "one single line of the list" is silly.
And the reference to "this set" by WM is equally silly, of course.
Selfdelusion, or deliberate obfuscation? Or just incompetence?
 Alan Smaill



