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 ]
Tanu R.

Posts: 640
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Matheology � 300
Posted: Jul 8, 2013 6:57 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Virgil schrieb:

> In article <>,
> wrote:

>> 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.

> In order for a natural to remain, it must be a natural with no
> successor, since for every natural WITH a successor, its removal
> satisfies all of WM's requirements, and thus must occur.
> 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.

> WM is thus claimg the existence of a last natural, one with no successor
> natural.

Thats wide more half the secret ;)

>> Find it! Tell it!
> WM is the only one who claims existence of a natural with no successor,

The potential succ(n, All n in N)?

> so he is the only one obligated to prove its existence.

No need as long asshole wm can enforce enough input round clock.

> Those of us who claim the sequence has no last member have nothing to
> prove, since every natural EXCEPT FOR a last one is correctly removed
> from the vase..

Kind of 'locality' ;)

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.