
Re: Only for mathematicians!
Posted:
Aug 18, 2014 4:30 PM


mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de 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+. Unindexed 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.
 Ben.

