Re: About pii and integers
From: Keckman (keckman_at_welho.com)
Date: 09/30/04
- Next message: Tudor: "Re: Computing the outcome of a permutation"
- Previous message: Keckman: "Re: About pii and integers"
- In reply to: Daniel W. Johnson: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Next in thread: Daniel W. Johnson: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Reply: Daniel W. Johnson: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:42:41 +0300
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:07:12 -0500, Daniel W. Johnson
<panoptes@iquest.net> wrote:
> Keckman <keckman@welho.com> wrote:
>> How can that says, that the way we define set S tells us nothing about
>> set
>> S?
>
> Consider the set of letters of the alphabet. That set itself is NOT a
> letter of the alphabet.
>
Im not saying that the set of naturals is natural number. I'm just saying
that
Peano's axioms do really say something about naturals numbers. You say it
does
not tell nothing.
* blonk *
I could not read more.
- Next message: Tudor: "Re: Computing the outcome of a permutation"
- Previous message: Keckman: "Re: About pii and integers"
- In reply to: Daniel W. Johnson: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Next in thread: Daniel W. Johnson: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Reply: Daniel W. Johnson: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|