The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 18,076
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: ? 360 Infinity and Theology (3)
Posted: Oct 31, 2013 1:06 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.