Re: Definition of finite.

On May 3, 5:57 pm, MoeBlee <jazzm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 3, 3:40 pm, zuhair <zaljo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Remember I said that Tarski's definition
is 'essentially' circular. I didn't say
it is formally circular.

This definition of finite , I mean the one
with the R and conv(R) that you've mentioned
is much better than Tarski's quasy-circular
definition. actually this definition using R
and conv(R) is my definition of x is finite
number 2.

In Z without the axiom of infinity, the 'R and conv(R)' definition is
equivalent to Tarski's 'subset maximal' definition, which is
equivalent to other definitions, and, in Z, all of these are
equivalent to 'member of w'.

Meanwhile your 'essentially circular' and 'quasi-circular' are your
own self-distractions.

Nup.

MoeBlee


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: sin x / x tends to 1...
    ... >> Not formally circular but obviously circular. ... Repeat, though use the initial condition y= ... the sine by any of these "analytic" methods then the question ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Definition of finite.
    ... is 'essentially' circular. ... it is formally circular. ... Meanwhile your 'essentially circular' and 'quasi-circular' are your ... own self-distractions. ...
    (sci.math)