
Re: Fundamental Theorem of Calculus: derivative is inverse to integral #7 textbook 5th ed. : TRUE CALCULUS; without the phony limit concept
Posted:
Jun 16, 2013 5:03 PM


Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes:
> On 15/06/2013 1:44 AM, Peter Percival wrote: >> Nam Nguyen wrote: >> >>> >>> No the inductive definition says that in your case of "{0, s(0), >>> s(s(0)), ... }" we'd have: >>> >>> (1) (0 e U) and (s(0) e U) and (s(s(0)) e U) >>> (2) (x e U) => (s(x) e U). >>> >>> In stipulation (2) it does _NOT_ say x must necessarily be finite. >> >> That is why you need a third clause that says (or has the effect that) >> the set being defined is the smallest such U. > > First, you should direct your technical "advice" here to Alan: that's > _his_ definition, _his_ defending of something, we're talking about.
It's the standard definition, not mine. And this advice is of course correct.
 Alan Smaill

