Re: About pii and integers
From: Keckman (keckman_at_welho.com)
Date: 09/27/04
- Next message: Wilhelm: "Re: Prime factorization"
- Previous message: Randy Poe: "Re: .9999... = 1"
- In reply to: Virgil: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Next in thread: Arturo Magidin: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Reply: Arturo Magidin: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:28:15 +0300
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:17:10 -0600, Virgil
<ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
> A propos of nothing, why do you write "pii" where everyone else here
> writes "pi"?
"pii" is my mother language. At it means "pi" in english. And "pi" in
english means "pii" in finnish.
The last centence was not fruitless. Lets take any word in english. Let
say "mother".
i get these finnish words:
emo
emä
kantaäiti
synnyttäjä
äiti
if i translate all of these, i get distinct these:
dam
mother
ancestress
progenitrix
parturient
woman in labor
mamma
mammy
mater
parent
If i translate all of those i get distinct these (not previously mentioned
in this list):
pato
sulku
padota
esiäiti
poikiva
synnyttäjä
nainen
nais-
naishenkilö
naispuolinen
nisä
lastenhoitaja
isä
toinen vanhemmista
And if you translate those back to english you would get words that got
nothing to do with mother.
BTW: No i understand what was meaned when somebody said ""Because
everybody has a mother then there is is a mother of all", is not valid".
But that analogy is not good dealing with natural number, if it is
supposed that there are infinete amount of them (there is finete amount of
everybody). and that argument is not valid even for finete set. But this
argument "Because every member in set S have mother then there is one
Grand grand mother whos chlid or chlid's child, or child's child's child
every member are except the grand grand mother herself".
If you start to compose that kind of set which every member have mother
you can think firs set that has only one member. Then two and three and
for. Think it in your mind. Like a tree:
1
/ \
2 3
Where can you put the fourth member so that set's every member (expeth 1)
still has a mother?
Under the 2 or 3 or 1. Or you can put it above 1, but then 4 gonna be the
grand grand mother.
In anyway. This btw. how the set of integers is defined. First
mathematicians have defined number 1 and then 2, and so on.
In any otherway: "Because every member in set S have mother then there is
one Grand grand mother who's chlid or chlid's child, or child's child's
child every member are except the grand grand mother herself" is true even
for the infinete sets if they are produced like natural numbers. And that
grand mother is not meaned to be number 1. It is the biggest "motherist"
member of naturals - altough i put it to be mother in that construction
above.
So: "Because every member in set S have mother, then there is one Grand
grand mother whos chlid or chlid's child, or child's child's child every
member are except the grand grand mother herself" is valid even for the
infinete set of naturals. -> there is a biggest natural number in set of
naturals if it is produced so that mathematicians do produce it.
- Next message: Wilhelm: "Re: Prime factorization"
- Previous message: Randy Poe: "Re: .9999... = 1"
- In reply to: Virgil: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Next in thread: Arturo Magidin: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Reply: Arturo Magidin: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|