
Re: Matheology § 263
Posted:
May 15, 2013 9:23 PM


On May 16, 10:32 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <237329e6bd084bdf94cec6eb87af6...@oy6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, > Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 ? > > There is no natural which is necessarily a member of every missing set > so until you tell me a lot more about which naturals are or not in your > missing set, I cannot tell you anything about which naturals are or not > in your missing set. >
How many missing sets have you specified?
Herc

