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.independent

Topic: Matheology � 300
Replies: 13   Last Post: Jul 17, 2013 6:39 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 7,011
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 300
Posted: Jul 15, 2013 4:41 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <ddc2e84e-39a1-45ff-91c3-124dce818cc7@googlegroups.com>,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:

> On Monday, 15 July 2013 18:23:40 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
>

> >
> >
> >
> > Any finite set of Naturals is a subset of infinitely many line,

>
> The infinite set of naturals is nothing else than all finite sets of
> naturals.


Wrong!, It is notmerely a set of sets of naturals, as you wold have it,
but the union of such a set of sets, that is to say it is also a set of
naturals.





> What else should define it (in mathematics with finite naturals -
> not in matheology with infinite beliefs).


Given any set of sets, in a set theory such as ZF, there is a inion set
whose members are exactly the members of members of the original set of
sets.

Thus in any decent set theory, if every natural is in a set of naturals,
say its FISON, then the union of all FISONs exists and is the set of
all naturals.
So that outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, there is a
set of naturals, and inside WM's wild weird world of WMytheology there
no coherent way of dealing with the notion of sets at all.
> >
> > but no infinite set of Naturals is a subset of any line.

>
> Let the sets where they belong, namely in matheology. Let's talk math, namely
> about numbers.


Set theory is as much part of modern mathematics in the 21st century as
any other area of mathematics, and those who reject it are not 21st
century mathematicians, or even 20th century mathematicians, and are bad
even as 19th century mathematicians.
--





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.