
Re: Matheology § 263
Posted:
May 15, 2013 5:04 PM


On May 15, 6:14 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <0982dd8e550d4f48a918b9b7b3c00...@oy9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, > Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 15, 12:21 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > In article > > > > > GIVEN A LIST OF SUBSETS OF N > > > > > you admit you cannot calculate ANY members of a supposed missing set. > > Not without the complete list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > f(1) = { 1 , 3 , 6 } > > > > f(2) = { 1 , 5 , 11 } > > > > f(3) = { 2 , 4 , 6, 8 , 10 , ... } > > > > f(4) = { 4 , 5, 6, 7, 8 } > > > > > IS 2 e MISSINGSET ? > > > > > Last time asking. > > > > Yes! As previously answered 2 is a member of at least one such missing > > > set. And so is 3, of at least for one such missing set. > > > But there are more sets missing than not missing and 2 need not be > > > missing from every one of those "missing sets". > > > So Missing Set = { ......... } ???? > > No missing set can be identified without first having the list of all > the sets which are not missing. >
You can't calculate any members at all of any missing set ?
> > And then uncountably many of them will seen to be be missing. >
Can you define THAT set?
Herc

