Date: Feb 5, 2013 9:11 AM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 203
On Feb 5, 3:05 pm, gus gassmann <g...@nospam.com> wrote:

> On 05/02/2013 7:17 AM, William Hughes wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > On Feb 5, 10:38 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > <snip>

>

> >> So "there is no list of X" is

> >> true for every potentially infinite set.

>

> > And so it goes. Now there is no list

> > of |N.

>

> > So ends this round. It has

> > taken 100 posts to get WM to

> > admit that different potentially

> > infinite sets have different

> > listability. It would take another

> > 100 posts to get him to admit

> > that he admitted it.

>

> > We now know

> > that the potentially infinite

> > series 0.111...

>

> > is not a single line of the list

>

> > 0.1000...

> > 0.11000...

> > 0.111000...

> > ...

>

> > More importantly, we have learned that

> > we can use induction to show "every"

> > and that "every n -> P(n)" is equivalent

> > to "there is no m such that ~P(m)"

> > So we do not need to resort to "all"

> > to show something does not exist.

>

> One wonders what you have gained by all this. Mueckenheim clearly has

> not learned, so why do you bother?

Fun.

You have clearly read at least some of the posts.

Why do you bother?