Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.

In article <1174153495.840244.239210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

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?

Relevance?

In case you do not like the WM for ad hominem reasons

It is not a matter of ad hominem, but of whether your definition can be
instanciated.

As far as I can see, your definition of WM's WM requires finding a
maximum value within a set which has no maximum value.
.

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 ... D = set of all ordinals up to second number class - set of all finite ...
    (sci.math)