Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Virgil

Posts: 9,012
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 295
Posted: Jun 27, 2013 2:46 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic 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.
--





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.