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: ? 360 Infinity and Theology (3)
Replies: 15   Last Post: Nov 3, 2013 5:06 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de Posts: 18,076 Registered: 1/29/05
Re: ? 360 Infinity and Theology (3)
Posted: Oct 31, 2013 1:06 PM

On Wednesday, 30 October 2013 15:46:47 UTC+1, Robin wrote:

> He cannot distinguish for all x: there exists y: P(x,y)
> from
> there exists y: for all x: P(x,y)

The distinction is easy: The first sentence shows that every x is related to an y, the second sentence shows that not all x are related to the same y.

Conclusion: There are more than one y necessary such that all x are related to some y.

The same holds for naturals and FISONs: If not every natural is in one and the same FISON, then at least two FISONs are required to contain every natural - two or more or infinitely many. But everybody who claims that this is true should be able to name the first FISON of the required set of FISONs.

Since this is impossible because every FISON can be shown to be not required, the idea of the existence of more natural numbers than fit into one FISON is absurd.

Regards, WM

Regards, WM

Date Subject Author
10/29/13 Ben Bacarisse
10/30/13 Robin Chapman
10/31/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
10/31/13 Virgil
11/1/13 Virgil
11/2/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/2/13 fom
11/2/13 Virgil
11/3/13 albrecht
11/2/13 Virgil
10/31/13 Virgil
11/1/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/1/13 Virgil