Date: Mar 22, 2013 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 3/22/2013 5:14 AM, WM wrote:
> On 22 Mrz., 10:49, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>> On 3/22/2013 4:13 AM, WM wrote:
>>> On 22 Mrz., 09:54, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/22/2013 1:38 AM, WM wrote:
>>>>> This proves that we can remove all finite lines from the
>>>>> list without changing the contents of the remaining list. And this is
>>>>> remarkable, isn't it?
>>>> Since WM also claims that all the lines of that list are finite lines,
>>>> WM is now claiming one can trow out the entire contents of a list and
>>>> still have the entire original list in place.
>>> That is a consequence of the completed infinity of set theory.
>> He is referring to your claims
> I know. They are a consequence of finihed infinity.
>>>> Unfortunately, as in the above claim, what WM claims to be the case
>>> can be proven by induction that holds for every finite line.
>>> Every number that belongs to line n belongs to the next lines too.
>> It should be observed, once again, that the most WM is ever referring
>> to with statements like this is the form of the domain for an
>> induction rather than any true use of inductive proof.
> True use of inductive proof has been fonuded by Fermat without any
> reference to domain. Your "true use" refers to "the only method you
> have been taught".
I missed this one.
Once again, WM is turning back to a time
before axiomatic mathematics.
He just posted 228 in which it is acceptable
to have the pure imaginary unit as a number.
What then is a number? If there are different
kinds of numbers, what distinguishes numbers from
non-numbers? What do we call a collection of given
numbers that are the same type? Would that be
a number system? What is the criterion for calling
an arbitrary collection of objects a number system?
Would that be an arithmetical calculus?
Why should any arbitrary collection of objects
with an arithmetical calculus not be called a