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: WMytheology � 300
Replies: 3   Last Post: Jul 13, 2013 9:05 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: WMytheology � 300
Posted: Jul 12, 2013 6:53 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <>, wrote:

> On Friday, 12 July 2013 19:13:19 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
> > It is rather silly to expect the process that creates each of the Naturals
> > would produce the set of all Naturals, as that set is, itself, not a
> > Natural.

> Each natural belongs to a finite initial segment. None of them requires a
> number that is larger than every natural number.

Even the set of all natural numbers does not require a natual number
larger than every natural number

> In fact the contrary. If you
> do not talk about the set, then there is no reason to talk about alephs.

But for induction, one must have "for all natural numbers", so one might
as well have the set of all of them.
> You seem to understand that each or every natural is quite different from the
> set of all naturals?

Each member of ANY set is distinguishable from the set containing it,
at least outside of WM's wild, weird world of WMytheology .

Date Subject Author
Read Re: WMytheology � 300
Read Re: Matheology § 300

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.