```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 isrequired 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 oftheir birth?Regards, WM
```