Re: limitation to induction on finite bounds
From: |-|erc (gotcha_at_beauty.com)
Date: 07/03/04
- Next message: Peter Olcott: "Re: Peter Olcott's Source of Confusion"
- Previous message: |-|erc: "Re: "Head Up Your Arse" technology"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: limitation to induction on finite bounds"
- Reply: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: limitation to induction on finite bounds"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 02:36:44 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote
> >> >> >> The plot of the set of {0.3, 0.33, 0.333, ...} will cover 1/3, if
> >>one uses your
> >> >> >> procedure to draw all real numbers such that 03033 SetMinus r = 0.
>
> Depends on your definition of "cover". But OK, congratulations.
> You've now proved that all sets are closed. (This is because
> all sets cover their limit points, according to your definition-set.)
>
fine, so your set 010203 covers all reals from 0 to 1.
cover meaning: Ar 0<r<1, T setminus r=0,
not necessarily a bijection.
Herc
- Next message: Peter Olcott: "Re: Peter Olcott's Source of Confusion"
- Previous message: |-|erc: "Re: "Head Up Your Arse" technology"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: limitation to induction on finite bounds"
- Reply: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: limitation to induction on finite bounds"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|