Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7

Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

On 6 feb, 20:04, G. Frege <nomail@invalid> wrote:

Finally: Since in ZFC everything is a set, this means that there can't
be a function S in ZFC "only consisting of composite successor functions
s" such that

        N = S(0).

I'm not blind. That plainly contradicts one of your earlier results
!

Only if his earlier result was (a) mistaken or (b) using a different
definition of S. So why not cite the earlier result?

And Jesse F. Hughes has just proved that not only S(0) = N but also
S(n) = N for all n e N !

Yes, I proved that *for a particular definition of S*, namely

y is in S(x) iff there is some n such that for all m > n
y is in S_m(x)

Here, S_m(x) = s o s o ... o s(x), where there are exactly m
compositions.

My proof does not contradict any proof using a different definition of
S. So cite the earlier result.


--
"The papers are currently at journals. [When published,] make no
mistake, there will be no place on this planet where you can hide.
Remember, I'm not talking about something vague here. I'm talking
about publication in journals." James S. Harris. Wow. Journals.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
    ... Since in ZFC everything is a set, ... be a function S in ZFC "only consisting of composite successor functions ... Han de Bruijn ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
    ... Since in ZFC everything is a set, ... be a function S in ZFC "only consisting of composite successor functions ... not see that in ZFC it is the limit in any sense of successor functions. ...
    (sci.math)
Loading