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

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 1,972
Registered: 7/4/07
Re: (infinity) A real story
Posted: Oct 11, 2013 10:11 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply writes:

> On Friday, 11 October 2013 15:27:19 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> 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

> 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 un-cited)

> 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
re-quote them again here:

>> Yes, there are monotone sequences of set. Yes, what you say about
>> them is rubbish.

See? I called what your made-up 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*.)


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.