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