Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Virgil <Virgil@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:17:34 -0700
In article <76e9b$479f4631$82a1e228$13175@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
On 2008-01-29, in sci.math, Han de Bruijn wrote:
Whew! Now, _that_'s an explanation! What's the *!#!@$ difference !?
The locution "set closed under the successor function" has a perfectly
clear meaning while "applying the successor function an infinite
number of times" is meaningless.
Typical .. I'd rather say that they're exactly the same. Meaning: if you
accept the first then I see no reason why not accept the second. Talking
about "clear" ..
The set {0,1} is closed under f(x) = 1-x and also under g(x) = x^2.
Neither of these closures requires infinite numbers of compositions.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- References:
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: lwalke3
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: lwalke3
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- Prev by Date: Re: Singular and simplicial Homology
- Next by Date: Re: Proof that ZFC is inconsistent
- Previous by thread: Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- Next by thread: Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
