
Re: A finite set of all naturals
Posted:
Aug 23, 2013 10:35 AM


In <ibwRt.141571$907.138612@fx17.iad>, on 08/22/2013 at 04:23 PM, Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> said:
>Whatever you may wish to say, that doesn't negate the fact that >odd(x) can be defined as a positive formula with only the symbol '*' alone,
If you're excluding S then the subject is inappropriate.
>No it's _not_ :
If you're excluding S then the subject ... naturals *is* inappropriate.
>it's true that even(x) can be defined _with or without_ '*', while >odd(x) is _not_ : _still in reference to the natural numbers_ .
If it's in reference to the natural numbers then S is available.
 Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk Email subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive Email. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

