Virgil
Posts:
9,012
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Joel David Hamkins on definable real numbers in analysis
Posted:
Jun 26, 2013 8:37 PM


In article <9ebc096137c141dcac34654413e63cc1@googlegroups.com>, mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 23:09:28 UTC+2, Virgil wrote: > >> For all n exists k: > d_1, d_2, d_3, ..., d_n = q_k1, q_k2, q_k3, ..., > >> q_kn. > > > So what? That does not prove that there exists any k for all n. > > What is "all n"?
The membership of N, which, everywhere except in WM's mytheology, is standard. > > > Quantifier dyslexia cripples WM's arguments again! WM's claims above do NOT > > establish existence of any k for which d_n = q_k_n for ALL n in N, which > > is what WM would need to prove his false claim. > > If your N contains more n than anybody can name, then you are right. But > then N belongs to matheology, not to mathematics.
Nope! OUtside of WM's mytheology, the actuality of a set, N, of all natural numbers is standard.
And no one is forced to accept WM's unwarranted assumption to the contrary.
> If your claim is correct > for nameable n, then name an n for which my theorem fails.
WM do not have a theorem until WM has a proof valid in standard mathematics as well as in WM's matheology, and WM's falsely claimed theorem still does not have any such proof. 

