Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Matheology � 038
Posted:
Jun 17, 2012 3:48 PM
|
|
In article
<0eb65718-c649-4f1c-960d-68110a76ebfa@d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 17 Jun., 18:48, PotatoSauce <kiwisqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 16, 2012 6:54:28 AM UTC-4, WM wrote:
> > > > The definition of surjectivity is, "for every x in the codomain, there
> > > > is a preimage."
> >
> > > Yes. For every x. But that expression is purest nonsense.
> >
> > Here's an example even you can understand.
> >
> > "For every Mersenne prime number x, x is a prime number."
> >
> > According to me (and probably a lot of other people), the statement is
> > trivially true, because Mersenne primes are by definition prime numbers.
> >
> > According to you, this statement makes sense or no sense depending on
> > whether the set of Mersenne prime numbers are finite or infinite.
>
> How do you know that there are all Mersenne prime numbers?
What has that to do with the meaningfulness, or the truth, of
"For every Mersenne prime number x, x is a prime number."?
Are statements like that forbidden in WM's matheology?
> Where is
> that "there"? If there are all in X, say, are then also all sets you
> can think of in X. And is there also the set of all sets? And if not,
> what is the largest set of X? What makes the border?
>
How are any of WM's matheologically based questions relevant to either
the meaning, or the truth, of the statement:
"For every Mersenne prime number x, x is a prime number."?
In standard mathematics the statement
"Each x with of the intersection of set A and set B is a member of set B"
is true regardless of what sets are involved or what may go on in WM's
matheology.
--
|
|
