Date: Feb 28, 2013 2:03 PM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
On Feb 28, 12:03 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 27 Feb., 21:28, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> > On Feb 27, 8:21 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>

> > > Do you prefer your argument?

>

> > There is no disagreement over the facts.

>

> > We both agree that there is a natural number

> > valued function of time, m(t), such that

> > at any time t, m(t) is the index of an existing

> > line which contains all existing FIS of d.

> > We both agree that m(t) is not constant.

>

> Until now I was of the opinion that you accept completed infinity.

> There is no m(t).

>

Well, I was of the opinion we agree. Looks like

I was wrong. I misinterpreted

> Now, in standard terminology (where there

> is no such thing as a variable

> natural number) we have

> a natural number valued function of time

> (or of the number of FISs of d that "actually

> exist", an increasing function of time)

> m(t). It is trivial to see that there

> is an m(t) such that the "actually existing"

> line with index m(t), contains all

> "actually existing" FISs of d.

WM: Exactly!

I still do not understand why I cannot

take a simple natural number valued

function of time, say a(t) and set it

equal to m.