The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 300
Replies: 27   Last Post: Jul 9, 2013 2:53 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 18,076
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 300
Posted: Jul 8, 2013 5:35 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Monday, 8 July 2013 22:20:31 UTC+2, Virgil wrote:

> > Look at this simple piece of logic: If I remove a number ONLY after another one has been inserted, then even infinitely many transactions will NEVER show an empty set.

> WM's excessively finitist WMytheology is far too restrictive and self-contradictory to allow for a proper analysis of this problem. Let WM answer this: If every insertion of a natural number into an initially empty vase before noon is followed by its removal, also before noon, as is the case here, which natural numbers does WM claim will remain unremoved at noon?

I do not order what will have to remain. I order that at least one natural will remain. Play the game as long as it is possible without removing all naturals from the urn. It will possible for the first 10^100^1000^1000000000 steps. I cannot see that there is a limit. But if you believe that at noon all naturals will have left the urn, then there must be a limit.

Find it! Tell it!

Regards, WM

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

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