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 § 293
Replies: 44   Last Post: Jun 27, 2013 2:25 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 dankatewiiliams@gmail.com Posts: 2 Registered: 6/20/13
Re: WMytheology � 293
Posted: Jun 20, 2013 2:41 PM

"WM" <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message
On 19 Jun., 23:38, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>
>> The set whose members are {1}, {2}, {3}, ...
>> clearly has union set |N.

>That is just the question.

then where is the ? mark ??

>
>> But WM claims
>> The set whose members are {1}, {1,2}, {1,2,3}, ...
>> must have a union set strictly less than |N.
>>
>> What sort of set theory says things like that?>

>Matheology. The second sequence contains sets such that for every set
>there are aleph_0 numbers missing. The sequence is strictly
>increasing, such that there is never more than one set required to
>have accumulated all numbers of the preceding sets. And every set is a
>union, such that we infinitely many unions. None of which accomplishes
>to yield |N.

nope, you are wrong.

>But, abracadabra, if you union the results of infinitely many unions,
>then you get the missing aleph_0 numbers.

true.

>That is not correct in mathematics. Therefore also

wrong

>{1}, {2}, {3}, ... clearly has not the union set |N - since there is
>no set |N.

>Look, if after the end of all times God will check

God dosent have to check, he already knows youre wrong.

>what natural
>numbers have been used by his creatures, then the set will be finite.
>That means, at least in mathematics, there has no actually infinite
>set |N been applied over the aeons. Mathematicians could have chosen
>every natural they wish. Nevertheless, all belong to a set that has
>aleph_0 elements less than what you define as |N.

dankatewiiliams@gmail.com
>Regards, WM

dankatewiiliams@gmail.com
Regards, WM

dankatewiiliams@gmail.com