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: Matheology � 400
Replies: 4   Last Post: Dec 4, 2013 5:04 PM

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: Matheology � 400
Posted: Dec 4, 2013 4:15 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <>,
WM <> wrote:

> But all this discussion has become futile after the recognition that the
> expression "For all n in |N" is utterly false, since in well-defined precise
> mathematics we have not more than "For every natural number that is followed
> by infinitely many natural numbers".

SO tath WM concedes the existence of an actual infininty of natural
numbers following each natural number.
And since he concedes thats ince every natural number number IS
followed by infinitely many others all infinitely many of them are.
Or can WM name one which isn't?

> After a while also you will understand
> that "For all n in |N" is of the same logical level as "let x be an
> irrational rational"

That can only be the case inside of WM's wild weird world of
WMytheology where WM makes the rules.

Elsewhere, where WM is not able to impose his own rules,
things are far moresensible.

Date Subject Author
Read Re: Matheology � 400
Read Re: Matheology � 400

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.