Date: Feb 28, 2013 6:07 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots
In article

<9a21f1cb-c01f-4206-959c-05bbe5864bfe@h14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> 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.

It is certainly standard enough in English usage to be able to define a

function whose domain is the complete set of natural numbers, or the

complete set of the members of some infinite sequence of real numbers.

If the German language does not allow it, no wonder WM is so badly

messed up!

--