The Math Forum

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Alan Smaill

Posts: 1,103
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
Posted: Mar 4, 2013 6:27 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

William Hughes <> writes:

> On Mar 3, 10:56 pm, WM <> wrote:
>> On 3 Mrz., 17:36, William Hughes <> wrote:

>> > On Mar 3, 12:41 pm, WM <> 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.

Self-delusion, or deliberate obfuscation?
Or just incompetence?

Alan Smaill

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.