Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.



Re: Set limits.
Posted:
Jul 24, 2014 6:02 PM


Zeit Geist <tucsondrew@me.com> writes:
> On Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:09:50 PM UTC7, muec...@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote: <snip> >> That's what I did. These few lines >> s_(n+1) = (s_n U { q  n < q =< n+1 }) \ {q_(n+1)} >> with s_1 = { q  0 < q =< 1 } \ {q_1} >> and q_1 = 1/1, q_2 = 1/2, q_3 = 2/1, q_4 = 3/1... >> prove that not all rationals are indexed by naturals. > > No, they Don't. They Define some Sets, and that is All.
Yes. The last time WM did this I pointed out that he claims a definition can be a proof and he called me a liar. Presumably, then, in WMspeak there are things (like some definitions) that can "prove" something without being "a proof". Do you think he spins this sort of tangled web in the class room? I hope not.
<snip>  Ben.



