Date: Jan 30, 2013 4:53 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 203
In article

<a7b295fd-a628-46ef-aae1-5b847cee357e@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 30 Jan., 10:13, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> > In article

> > <b79952f1-a65c-4b62-9cb4-5a358b78b...@4g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,

> >

> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > > You can prove something for all natural numbers, but not for a larger

> > > set.

> >

> > You can prove that the set of naturals can be injected into a proper

> > subset of itself. n --> n+1 is such an injection.

>

> In fact this property only shows potential infinity. You prove

> something for every n but not for all elements of the set.

In my world proving something "for all naturals numbers" proves it for

all elements of the set of natural numbers.

>

> > Any set of objects

> > with this property (of being injectable to a proper subset of itself) is

> > by definition actually infinite.

>

> So what? Similarly we can define: Every set of more than ten natural

> numbers and sum less than 5 is by definition actually finite.

Since everywhere but inside Wolkenmuekenheim there is already a

perfectly adequate defnition of a set being finite, your attempt revise

that definition is irrelevant outside of Wolkenmuekenheim.

> Nevertheless there is no actually finite set of natural numbers.

Actually, every FISON is an actually finite set of natural numbers, it

is just that none of those FISONs is a set of ALL natural numbers the

way their union is.

--