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 � 255
Replies: 3   Last Post: Apr 30, 2013 7:01 AM

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 � 255
Posted: Apr 30, 2013 5:17 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
WM <> wrote:

> > Please in a clear in precise manner show that
> > (A)  No line contains all naturals.
> > Implies
> > (B)  exist j, k, m, n : m e s_j & ~(m e s_k) & ~(n e s_j) & n e s_k.

> There is at least one line, that is lacking at least one natural, ok?
> But if this were in another line containing all of the first one, the
> other line would contain all naturals, ok?

Not at all. "At least one" does not mean "no more then one" so one has
infinitely many different lines each of which is missing at least one
natural, and with each actually be missing infinitely many, and all but
finitely many, naturals. The collection of all FISONs (Finite Initial
Sets Of Natuals) form such a family of sets.

> > At least one natural must be missing in every line.  Indeed, there are
> > infinitely many of em missing from every line.

> Then there are not all in the lines.

Nope, that doesn't work either, because with infinitely many lines in
the form of FISONs, no natural is missing from more than finitely many
of those infinitely many lines.

So WM is again totally wrong on all counts.

Date Subject Author
Read Re: Matheology � 255
Read Re: Matheology § 255
gus gassmann

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.