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:
(infinity) A real story
Replies:
6
Last Post:
Oct 12, 2013 6:03 PM




Re: (infinity) A real story
Posted:
Oct 11, 2013 10:11 PM


mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de writes:
> On Friday, 11 October 2013 15:27:19 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de writes: > On Thursday, 10 October 2013 16:35:29 > >> Yes, there are monotone sequences of set. Yes, what you say about >> them is rubbish. > > I only say about them that they are monotone sequences.
No, you said this of them as well:
 The principle says that in a set of finite lines, there is always one  line containing all elements of the set. Simple as that.  And that priciple does not fail for infinite numbers of lines, because  every line has a finite number of elements.
You snipped it again, presumably to avoid further exposure of this nonsense. You also refused (again) to answer the question it raises about the sequence in question ({1}, {1,2}, {1,2,3}, ...). What's that, the sixth time?
You also didn't provide any references to support the claim that this silly principle is widely held, despite pretending that Zermelo and von Neumann were among those that held it. Where do they say what you claim?
> In particilar the finite initial segments of N are a strictly > monotonic sequence. Without any single exception.
They are indeed. I am surprised, then, that you can can't say which one "contains all elements of the set". You've said "the set" is not N, and later you said that it is not an infinite, so what finite set has the property claimed by this supposedly widely held (but so far uncited) principle?
> You call that rubbish. I call it mathematics.
No. Did you read my words? They are up there for all to see but I'll requote them again here:
>> Yes, there are monotone sequences of set. Yes, what you say about >> them is rubbish.
See? I called what your madeup principle *says* about that sequence rubbish. That the finite initial segments of N are a strictly monotonic sequence is not in question.
Of course they form a strictly monotonic sequence. That's why your principle applies to the sequence. That's why you keep snipping what you said about it, because you can't even explain what "the set" it refers to is in this case.
(Please don't tell me again that it's not N, and that it's not an infinite set  we'll be here for years if you keep saying what it isn't. I want to know what it *is*.)
 Ben.



