-- Torgny Tholerus > So either the set N does not exists in which case it makes no sense to > talk about the biggest number in N, or the set N does indeed exists > and it makes no sense to talk about the biggest number in N (while it > makes sense to talk about a number which is strictly bigger than any > natural number). > > To come back to the proof by contradiction you gave, the assumption > (2) which is that BIGGEST+1 is in N, is completely defined by the mere > existence of BIGGEST. If BIGGEST exists and well defined it entails > that BIGGEST+1 is not in N (but this invalidate the successor > operation and hence the mere existence of N). If BIGGEST in contrary > does not exist (as such, means it is not the biggest) then BIGGEST+1 > is in N by definition of N. > > Regards, > Quentin > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---Received on Thu Jun 04 2009 - 15:23:04 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:16 PST