Date: Mar 2, 2013 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On 2 Mrz., 17:18, William Hughes <> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 1:17 pm, WM <> wrote:

> > On 1 Mrz., 23:51, William Hughes <> wrote:
> > > > The argument is not only time.
> > > m can change even though the time does not ?
> > The maximum depends on the personal environment, the capability to
> > abbreviate numbers, the wish to do so, and many more factors. It
> > invents relativity into mathematics.

> Oh so m is not only an unfindable, variable
> natural number.  Everyone has their own
> personal m.

Of course. Imagine a world without intelligence. What would be that
largest number? What would be a number?

In relativity no spacetime without energy/mass.
In MatheRealism no numbers without intelligent beings.

> I'm glad we have things like m, because otherwise
> we would have to conclude some counterintuitive things
> are correct.

So it is.
> Still there is nothing to stop me having my own
> personal m(t) which is different from your
> m(t).

So it is.
> The fact that the your m(t) is
> different from my m(t) should not
> detract from the fact that
> we both agree that there is a natural number
> valued function of time, m(t), such that
> at any time t, m(t) is the index of an existing
> line which contains all existing FIS of d.
> We each believe that our m(t) is not constant.

Nice to hear.

And I am convinced to have proved that it is incompatible with actual
infinity. At least it should be clear that we cannot go to higher
infinities before we have reached infinity, which will never happen.

Regards, WM