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 § 253
Replies: 30   Last Post: Apr 22, 2013 2:44 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 253
Posted: Apr 19, 2013 4:08 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
WM <> wrote:

> On 19 Apr., 14:28, fom <> wrote:

> >
> > >>>> If numbers existed only as names then different names would necessarily
> > >>>> represent different numbers,

> >
> > Those are called negative existential statements.

> No, those are called nonsense.

Nowhere nearly as nonsensical as WM's notion that there can exist a
natural that cannot have a successor, or a double, or for which no
larger natural can exist.

According to the way naturals are DEFINED in terms of successorship,
there can be only one which is not a successor and none at all which do
not have a successor.

So that WM's infantile claims to have naturals with no successors is in
contradiction to the very nature of naturals.

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.