Date: Apr 3, 2013 6:40 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 3 Apr., 09:26, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> In article

> <2569eb91-7037-483e-be2c-17fce8394...@j9g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,

>

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

> > On 3 Apr., 00:29, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>

> > > The point being that removing one object from an infinite set does not

> > > diminish the infinite number left in the set

>

> > That is a good point. Alas induction holds for every natural number.

>

> No!

Your no is wrong. Induction holds for every natural number.

> It only holds for inductive sets:

But you don't know what the natural numbers are.

>

> One valid form of induction is:

>

> There exists a set of objects, N,

In mathematics that kind of nonsense is not required.

> and a special object such that:

> 1. The special object is a member of N.

> 2. For every object in N there is a successor object also in N.

That is not induction, but the property of natural numbers that is

required as the foundation of induction.

> 3. The special object is not a successor object of any object in N.

The special object it 2^22 and the elements of your N are 1^33, 0^44,

(-1)^55 and so on.

> 4. If successors of two objects in N are the same,

> then the two original objects are the same.

> 5. If any set contains The special object and the successor

> object of every object in N, then that set contains N as a subset.

The elements of N are the humans starting from Adam in the sequence of

their birth?

Regards, WM