On 20 Apr., 23:47, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 4/20/2013 1:44 PM, WM wrote: > > > > > > > On 20 Apr., 19:45, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > >>> Mathematicians can. Dedekind was a mathematician. Dedekind could. > > >> Yes. It does depend on definitions. > > >> I will not get my copy out concerning this matter > >> since I made the distinctions correctly. > > > Not with respect to the inventor of that matter. > > >> However, Dedekind did not call his domains inductive > >> sets. > > > Neither did I. > > >> He called them simply infinite sets. > > >> It depends on the definitions. > > > Not in the mathematics of Dedekind and myself. > > It would, apparently, be appropriate to call > WM a liar here, although I have heard that in > German there can be some ambiguity concerning > the words surrounding the translation of > "definition". > > Paragraph 71 > > Definition. A system N is said to be > simply infinite when there exists a similar > transformation P of N in itself such that N > appears as chain of an element not contained > in P(N). We call this element, which we shall > denote in what follows by the symbol '1', the > base-element of N and say the simply infinite > system N is set in order by this transformation P. > > It seems that Dedekind uses definitions > contrary to WM's assertion.-
Of course he does. And I never disputed that. You are simply too blind to understand written text. No use to try to inform you.