Date: Feb 28, 2013 5:07 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On 28 Feb., 20:03, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.


How can you call that "standard terminology". Who else says and thinks
so? And do you really think so? When have you become that idea?

Regards, WM

-