Date: Feb 21, 2013 8:17 AM
Author: Michael Stemper
Subject: Re: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
In article <2bf7c594-8e66-4624-94d3-b1e05946811f@9g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:

>On 20 Feb., 23:27, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Is the statement

>>

>> There is no natural number m

>> such that the mth line of L and x

>> are coFIS

>>

>> true?-

>

>No, the statement is wrong. The true statement is: We cannot find the

>largest number such that the mth line and x are coFIS. Again you

>assume actual infinity for x.

>

>Consider the union of ordered sets in ZF:

>(1, )

>(1, 2, )

>(1, 2, 3, )

>

>Each set has a blank.

You seem to be implicitly using this order relation:

- if p and q are naturals, then pRq iff p<q and qRp iff q<p

- if r is a natural, then rR' ' (in other words any natural comes before

a blank)

Is my understanding correct?

--

Michael F. Stemper

#include <Standard_Disclaimer>

"Writing about jazz is like dancing about architecture" - Thelonious Monk