Date: Feb 28, 2013 5:29 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
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.

Regards, WM