Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Topic: Matheology � 300
Replies: 2   Last Post: Jul 12, 2013 4:41 PM

 Virgil Posts: 8,833 Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 300
Posted: Jul 12, 2013 4:41 PM

mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:

> On Friday, 12 July 2013 01:12:23 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> Try to find some individuals that are not in one and the same line. Fail.
> >> Recognize - or, most probably, not.

> >
>
> > Ok, you win.
>
> There exist a line in the list, k, such that all n e |N, n e k.
>
> No!!! It is simply absurd and stupid to talk about all n in |N.

Then it must be equally stupid to claim proof by induction that
something is true for all n in |N.

But since , at least outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology,
induction produces valid proofs of statements of the form
"for all n in |N, f(n)"
WM's WMytheology does not hold outside of WM's WMytheology
>
> > Now, consider the line before k, m.
> We know m consists of each member k except the last element.
> Since k contians no last element, m has the same elements as k.
> Therefore, every line contains all the Natual Numbers.
>

> > Is that a valid proof?
> > I think it is.

>
> It is a valid proof. It proves that IF all naturals exist, THEN something
> goes wrong..

So that, forunately only in WM's wild weird world of WMytheology,
WM declares that all inductive proofs are invalid.
--