Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Virgil
Posts:
6,972
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Matheology � 295
Posted:
Jun 28, 2013 3:59 PM


In article <2c5382adce934beea492bd318a2b0868@googlegroups.com>, mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 June 2013 20:29:51 UTC+2, Virgil wrote: > > Without an axiom of infinity in ZF, there is no provable N or provable > > aleph_0, but with that axiom, in ZF one gets both. > > No
Lets see your alleged proof, WM, of an N in ZF without any axiom of infinity.
> One gets what we had for millenia
WM must be far older than the rest of us to have had anything for milenia.
So his WMYTHEOLOGY is probably due to senility.
: natural numbers such that everybody > could count as far as he could. "A set" is not defined by any axiom because > there is no definition of set. aleph_0 is about the same delusion in > matheology as is the devil in religions. But matheology is WM's own creation and universe, not ours, so they are only his own devils that he has to fight, not ours. 



