Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: WMytheology again
Replies: 11   Last Post: May 4, 2013 3:57 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 gus gassmann Posts: 60 Registered: 7/26/12
Re: WMytheology again
Posted: May 3, 2013 4:05 PM

On 03/05/2013 4:43 PM, Virgil wrote:
> In article
> WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>

>> On 3 Mai, 17:09, gus gassmann <g...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/05/2013 6:47 PM, Virgil wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>>> In article
>>>> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>>>
>>>>> On 2 Mai, 11:00, Zeit Geist <tucsond...@me.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, May 2, 2013 1:02:46 AM UTC-7, WM wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2 Mai, 07:32, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> by construction, every finite initial segment s_n = {1, 2, 3, ...,
>>>>>>>>> n}

>>>
>>>>>>>>> is in one single line, all finite initial segments are in one single
>>>
>>>>>>>>> line. But |N is not more than all its finite initial segments.
>>>
>>>>>>>> It is the union of all those finite lines, FISONs, and while each
>>>>>>>> line

>>>
>>>>>>>> has a largest natural in it the list of all lines does not nor does
>>>>>>>> the

>>>
>>>>>>>> union of all lines in that list.
>>>
>>>>>>> The list has no last line. Each line is a union. So there is no last
>>>
>>>>>>> union. So there are infinitely many unions. So it is useless to union
>>>
>>>>>>> all lines of the list in order to obtain something that has not been
>>>
>>>>>>> in an infinity of unions before.
>>>
>>>>>> Each natural, taken as an individual, is an element of infinitely
>>>>>> many lines, that is more than enough for it to be in the union.

>>>
>>>>> Each line is the union of all preceding lines. And there are
>>>>> infinitely many unions in this infinite list. That is more than enough
>>>>> to contain infinitely many naturals.

>>>
>>>> Any union of infinitely many "lines" which are all differing FISONs
>>>> results in |N, which is not only infinitely many naturals but is ALL of
>>>> naturals.

>>>
>>> And here is another pons asinorum for the good Professor.

>>
>>> The union of
>>> FISON(n) over all natural numbers is not

This was not written very clearly, and WM promptly seized upon the wrong
interpretation. What I meant was

U {n in N} FISON(n)

(which should be recognized even in Wolkenmueckenheim as being equal to N)

is not the same as

>>> ...[[(FISON(1) U FISON(2)] U FISON(3)] ...

This obviously is a pons asinorum for the good Professor, one he simply
refuses to cross.

>> You may define your union as you like. In the list we have this:
>>
>> FISON(n) = (...((FISON(1) U FISON(2)) FISON(3)) U ... FISON(n)) = {1,
>> 2, 3, ..., n}

>
> Which specifically omits the natural n+1 and all infinitely many of its
> successors.

>>
>> These unions applied in all cases contain all natural numbers that a
>> union can be applied to.

>
> Outside of Wolkenmuekenheim, one can, and must, do better than that.
>
> Only Wolkenmuekenheim's imprisoning walls finitely curtail otherwise
> infinite sequences.
>

Date Subject Author
5/2/13 Virgil
5/3/13 gus gassmann
5/3/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/3/13 Virgil
5/3/13 gus gassmann
5/3/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/3/13 Virgil
5/3/13 gus gassmann
5/4/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/4/13 Virgil