Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology � 258
Replies: 53   Last Post: May 11, 2013 10:07 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Virgil Posts: 8,833 Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 258
Posted: May 7, 2013 11:33 PM

In article <kmccj2\$v1k\$1@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca>,
gus gassmann <gus@nospam.com> wrote:

> On 07/05/2013 5:56 PM, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <kmbo3d\$e9h\$1@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca>,
> > Gus Gassmann <noone@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> >> It is really too bad that the great Professor is simply too dense to
> >> understand and use the following:
> >>
> >> A finite set of natural numbers contains a largest element.
> >> An infinite set of natural numbers does not contain a largest element.

> >
> > Even more generally, a finite ordered set with no largest member is
> > empty, but a non-empty ordered set with no largest member cannot be
> > finite.

>
> Sure. But one step at a time.
>
> A finite set {n_1, n_2, ... n_k} of natural numbers contains a largest
> element. Hence
>
> U {i=1,...,k} FISON(n_i) = FISON(m) where m = max{n_1, n_2, ..., n_k}
>
> But this identity breaks down when the index set does not have a maximal
> element. I said "understand *and use*". Of course it is clear that the
> good Professor cannot do either.

Yup!
--