Date: Feb 28, 2013 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots
On 28 Feb., 23:12, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 11:07 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > 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
> > > > 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.
> I am confused. Do you think that there is
> an m(t) or not?-
I think that there is a variable maximum or limit that depends (among
others) on t.
But I do not believe that this idea belongs to "standard terminology"
as you call it.