In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 June 2013 13:47:42 UTC+2, Peter Percival wrote: > > firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > > > >> Let X > 100 ==> 1/X < 1. > > > Why the 'Let'? > > If I let it not, then X < 1 is possible.
If you merely claimed "X > 100 ==> 1/X < 1" without the "Let", are you saying that X < 1 would then be possible? > > >> aleph_0 > 100 is defined. > > > aleph_0 > 100 is true. Why say it's defined? > > In matheology nothing is true unless it is an axiom or can be derived from an > axiom by logic or is defined. aleph_0 is not an axiom and cannot be derived > from an axiom by logic. Therefore is is defined.
For those who can read correctly, the issue Peter raised is not whether "alpha_0" is defined but why WM said that the statement "alpha_0 > 100" is defined, rather than merely being true.
If WM's English is so poor, perhaps he should stick to readin and posting only in German.
Presuming, of course, that WM's German is better than his English. --