Date: Feb 28, 2013 5:07 PM
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?