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

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: 538
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 <587de649-2b5b-4b74-91ef-bf9bed025e29@googlegroups.com>,
> mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de 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]

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