Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z

From: Giuseppe Bilotta (bilotta78_at_hotpop.com)
Date: 03/23/05 

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:43:37 +0100

Albert Wagner wrote:
> > Wrong. The original definition makes no statement whatsoever
> > about the finiteness or not of the subset.
>
> Of course it doesn't explicitly. But the implication is obvious.

This is true for a large part of Euclid's theorems as well.
Does this make Euclid's geometry circular?

> Is a pickpocket who works in gloves innocent of theft?

Non-sequitur straw-man argument.

> > *You* are deducing that the subset is itself infinite
> > (something which, BTW, you can only deduce if you accept that a
> > set which is in bijective correspondance with another set has
> > the same finiteness property; where do you get this from?), and
> > putting it back in the definition.
>
> Finiteness property? LOL. The old 'dormitive principle' again,
> huh? And yes, I used your own definition against you.

Finiteness property: a set being finite or not. 

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta
Can't you see
It all makes perfect sense
Expressed in dollar and cents
Pounds shillings and pence
                  (Roger Waters)