Date: Jun 21, 2013 6:16 AM
Author: Alan Smaill
Subject: Re: Fundamental Theorem of Calculus: derivative is inverse to integral #7 textbook 5th ed. : TRUE CALCULUS; without the phony limit concept
Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes:

> On 20/06/2013 5:04 AM, Alan Smaill wrote:

>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen@shaw.ca> writes:

...

>>> - In this of (c) you can _verify_ that 0, s(0), s(s(0)) are

>>> finite individuals, in your constructed set named "U".

>>>

>>> - In this of (c) you can _NOT verify_ x is a finite individual

>>> given x is in your constructed set named "U".

>>>

>>> Agree? If not, please refute my above by clearly _constructing a set_

>>> named "U", per the possibility (c), _without_ your '...' symbol.

>>

>> The question is irrelevant to my argument.

>

> It is relevant: you just don't realize it.

You are the one claiming *impossibility*.

I don't have to prove anything.

> As long as you don't

> _cast away_ the informal symbol '...' in your constructed U as

> I've previously done on stipulations (1) and (2) [see the below quote]

> then your argument would go nowhere, and virtually every question

> would be relevant.

>

> <quote>

>

> (1) (0 e U) and (s(0) e U) and (s(s(0)) e U)

> (2) (x e U) => (s(x) e U).

>

> </quote>

>

>> We just *suppose* we are in situation (c).

>

> But "suppose" does _not_ necessarily grant you the right to

> prove a particular statement as true or false.

Of course not --

I'm not claiming that.

>> Is it *possible* that the only elements of U are those that can be

>> proved to be in U, using the inductive definition?

>

> You have changed the subject, the question: your question now no

> longer references about "finite elements", i.e. finitely encoded

> elements. So let's go back to where we were.

Yes, this is an additional question.

But why do you refuse to answer?

> Is it possible that Alan's constructed U (constructed with his '...')

> would contain only finitely encoded individuals, where '...'

> would refer to the Generalized Inductive Definition?

>

> The answer is Yes, it's possible.

>

> Can we prove that Alan's constructed U (constructed with his '...')

> would contain only finitely encoded individuals, where '...' would

> refer to Generalized Inductive Definition?

>

> The answer is No, we can not prove that.

Fine, let's go with that.

Now what about the question:

Is it *possible* that the only elements of U are those that can be

proved to be in U, using the inductive definition?"

--

Alan Smaill