Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.

On 16 Mrz., 21:58, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1174052090.314056.16...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,


Since every member of every line is a member of the UFL, and WM's WM is
demonstrably not a member of the UFL, the question of whether any such
thing as a WM exists rears its head again

Do you have serious doubts that the open interval [0, 1) does exist
although it has no maximum?

In case you do not like the WM for ad hominem reasons: use simply the
complement D* of the difference
D = set of all ordinals up to second number class - set of all finite
ordinals.
Certainly omega is in D, so it is not in its comlement D* (with
respect to all ordinals of cardinal number less than 2^aleph_0).

Now apply the same to the set of all infinite paths. It is straight
forward.

Regards, WM

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
    ... demonstrably not a member of the UFL, the question of whether any such ... thing as a WM exists rears its head again ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.
    ... demonstrably not a member of the UFL, the question of whether any such ... thing as a WM exists rears its head again ... In case you do not like the WM for ad hominem reasons ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
    ... theorist to be able to come up with an example off the top of my head, ... but it strikes me there must be, say, definable properties P of ordinals ... whether there is an upper bound on the ordinals that have P. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
    ... On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:13:05 GMT, Aatu Koskensilta ... head, but it strikes me there must be, say, definable properties P of ... whether there is an upper bound on the ordinals that have P. ...
    (sci.logic)