Date: Apr 22, 2013 8:05 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 246
On 21 Apr., 21:17, gus gassmann <g...@nospam.com> wrote:

> On 18/04/2013 3:32 AM, fom wrote:

>

> > On 4/18/2013 1:25 AM, WM wrote:

> >> On 18 Apr., 03:52, gus gassmann <g...@nospam.com> wrote:

>

> >>>>> When changing this to {(1), (1, 2), (1, 2, 3), ...} nothing is added.

>

> >>> Yes, well. What's a bunch of parentheses (or braces) among friends?

> >>> Just like 1 + 5*8 = (1 + 5)*8, I suppose.

>

> >> Again a confused sequence of thoughts leading to a wrong analogy. Not

> >> astonishing from your side. Find a natural numbers that is in {(1),

> >> (1, 2), (1, 2, 3), ...} but not in {1, 2, 3, ...}? Or vice versa? Of

> >> course you would be able to answer that question but you will not

> >> publish it. I know.

>

> As long as Mueckenheim does not even understand the meaning of "in",

I use it for expressing that a natural number is in a set or one of

its subsets or in a term of a sequence or in one of its subsets.

Everybody could see that from the context. Anything wrong with this

obvious use?

Regards, WM