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: Only for mathematicians!
Replies: 26   Last Post: Aug 22, 2014 6:59 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: Only for mathematicians!
Posted: Aug 18, 2014 4:30 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply writes:

> On Monday, 18 August 2014 20:46:40 UTC+2, Virgil wrote:

>> For example. WM's argument saying for every n the set of naturals up to
>> n does not ennumerate all of Q+, thus |N does not ennumerate Q+ or Q is
>> based on the clearly false assumption that what is true for every FISON
>> (Finite Initial Set Of Naturals up to some n in |N) must be true for the
>> infinite set of naturals, |N.

> For indexing are only finite natural numbers available. What cannot be
> indexed by them, cannot be indexed at all. Your mystical "set |N" is
> nothing more than all n - in mathematics.

An excellent example of fine words with no mathematical significance.
What are "available" numbers? Set theory has no such notion. And in
set theory, "indexed" means being put into bijection with N -- something
you've reluctantly agreed to for Q+. Un-indexed members of a set would
not be in the image of the bijection -- again, you've agreed that no
such positive rational exists. It's all just rhetoric based on, sadly,
deliberately misleading use of terms.


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.