Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0

In article <1183462338.566097.4130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
WM <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 3 Jul., 05:08, "*** T. Winter" <***.Win...@xxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1183012627.739093.74...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> WM
<mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 28 Jun., 03:23, "*** T. Winter" <***.Win...@xxxxxx> wrote:
...
> > You:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And as
> > > > > > > every n is not less than 1, the sum of all cannot be less
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > omega.
> > Me:
> > > > > > Still lacking proof.
> > >
> > > Still lacking proof that every n is not less than 1?
> >
> > Lack of reading comprehension? It is about the sum.
>
> Every sum 1+2+3+...+n is less than the sum with as many, namely n 1's.
> (You need proof?)

No. The finite case is clear. For "the sum of all" you need definition,
although you do not think so. Within analysis the sum of all is undefined.
Within topology the sum can be defined if you compactify the reals, but
the result will depend upon the manner of compactification. Within set
theory the sum is in general undefined, but can be defined, as I already
wrote oh so many articles ago; but at that time you rejected my definition.
It is your assumption that a definition in one discipline should be
identical to a definition in another discipline leads you astray.

I need not consider disciplines.

Then WM had better stop considering mathematics altogether, as different
disciplines in mathematics can use the same terms in different ways, and
failure to be aware of that leads to his confusion.
.

Loading