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 § 295
Replies: 24   Last Post: Jun 30, 2013 3:32 PM

 Search Thread: Advanced Search

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Virgil Posts: 8,833 Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 295
Posted: Jun 27, 2013 2:46 PM
 Plain Text Reply

In article <23bc0281-5413-417e-a3a6-5b066df3ee14@googlegroups.com>,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:

> On Thursday, 27 June 2013 13:47:42 UTC+2, Peter Percival wrote:
> > mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de 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.
--

Date Subject Author
6/27/13 fom
6/27/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/27/13 Virgil
6/27/13 fom
6/28/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/28/13 fom
6/28/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/28/13 fom
6/29/13 Virgil
6/29/13 Virgil
6/30/13 Virgil
6/30/13 Virgil
6/28/13 Virgil
6/28/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/28/13 Virgil
6/28/13 Virgil
6/27/13 Peter Percival
6/27/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
6/27/13 Virgil
6/27/13 Virgil
6/27/13 Tanu R.

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.