Re: About pii and integers
From: Will Twentyman (wtwentyman_at_read.my.sig)
Date: 10/04/04
- Next message: pierre.c: "Re: T1 topology"
- Previous message: L.B.: "Re: prime~."
- In reply to: Keckman: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Next in thread: Virgil: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:53:38 -0400
Keckman wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:50:30 +0300, Keckman <keckman@welho.com> wrote:
>
>> So i must say that M does not belongs to N.
>>
>
> Or then i have to put in PAxioms (as i hope at least two - or one
> (except me) - person have allready realized it)
>
> That expept one (every n in N has follower n+1, expect one)
>
>
> NO EXCEPTIONS APPROVED! Shouts the hole mathematical society.
You will not be working with N as described by the Peano Axioms. Just
because you have properties that you want to be true of N does not mean
that it is reasonable to make them be true. There can be problems that
arise as a result.
-- Will Twentyman email: wtwentyman at copper dot net
- Next message: pierre.c: "Re: T1 topology"
- Previous message: L.B.: "Re: prime~."
- In reply to: Keckman: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Next in thread: Virgil: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|