# Re: Just a question

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:05:10 -0400

Hi Bruno,

It is obvious to anyone that understand the notion of "numbers" because
this notion of "bigger than" or greater than is enshrined in the notion of
the succession of numbers. My question involves situations that can not be
faithfully described only using a number. Are all relations strictly
Archimedean?

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Archimedean_property
http://www.cooldictionary.com/words/Archimedean-group.wikipedia

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
To: "Everything-List List" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 11:21 AM
Subject: Just a question

>
>
> Does everyone agree with the following proposition:
>
>
> For all number x, if x is bigger than 2 then x is bigger than 1.
>
>
>
> (by "bigger" I mean strictly bigger: 17 is strictly bigger than 16, but
> not strictly bigger than 17).
>
> It would help me to explain some point to non logicians if you tell me in
> case you believe the proposition above is false.
>
> I can put it in another way, like:
>
>
> Whatever the number someone can choose, if that number is bigger
> than
> 2 then it will be bigger than 1.
>
> Is it obvious?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
Received on Sat Jul 16 2005 - 12:08:00 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST