Date: Mar 17, 2013 7:27 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 3/17/2013 4:06 AM, WM wrote:
> On 17 Mrz., 00:25, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>

>>>> Can WM provide an definition for natural numberss which doe not state,
>>>> or at least imply, that every natural must have a successor natural?

>>
>>> Numbers are creations of the mind. Without minds there are no numbers.
>>
>> Which is not a relevant answer.

>
> By definition of a matheologian.

>>
>> Can WM provide an definition for natural numbers which doe not state,
>> or at least imply, that every natural must have a successor natural?

>
> It is always stated or at least implicitly assumed in classical
> mathematics that we are able to add 1. In reality this is an erroneous
> assumption as has been shown in MatheRealism.


So, WH and Virgil do the hard work to expose
the fact that WM assume's the directed
set structure of the natural numbers in
his statements.

I do the easy work of trying to place this
into a sensible construct such as the use
of a successor in Euclid's proof that there
is no greatest prime so that WM's
unfindable line has some sort of mangled
basis in classical mathematics.

But, it is all in vain.

One can know the reality of a future moment
that has not yet happened.

But, Euclid's assumption of a successor
is as erroneous as anything Cantor,
Dedekind, Brouwer, etc. has done.