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?
You have clearly read at least some of the posts.
Why do you bother?