Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:23:46 +0100
G. Frege wrote:
Ah, now it starts to make some sense.
But again, no one (other than you) came up here with a reference to a
"correct" definition.
It's a POSSIBLE definition (i.e. one that can be formulated in the
mathematical system under discussion, ZFC), and -imho- also a REASONABLE
definition (though the latter is not a mathematical question proper).
Okay. It's time to raise the next question. According to your improved
notation, we can say the following, I think. s is the common successor
(i.e. not the more advanced S defined by Jesse and you).
Theorem:
s[N] = {s(0),s(1),s(2), .. ,s(n), .. } = N \ {0} .
Is that correct? (Be patient, progressing with small but certain steps)
Han de Bruijn
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Virgil
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: G . Frege
- 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: G . Frege
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: Han . deBruijn
- 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: Han de Bruijn
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: G . Frege
- 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: Han de Bruijn
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- From: G . Frege
- Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
- Prev by Date: Re: Unresolved - Is continuity an irrelevant consequence
- Next by Date: Re: Unresolved - Is continuity an irrelevant consequence
- 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
|
