Sujet : Re: Replacement of Cardinality
De : invalid (at) *nospam* example.invalid (Moebius)
Groupes : sci.logic sci.mathDate : 02. Aug 2024, 19:08:07
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v8j3pn$2u09m$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
Am 02.08.2024 um 18:35 schrieb Jim Burns:
On 8/2/2024 7:40 AM, WM wrote:
Le 01/08/2024 à 18:43, Jim Burns a écrit :
On 8/1/2024 8:02 AM, WM wrote:
∀n ∈ ℕ: 1/n - 1/(n+1) > 0.
Note the universal quantifier.
It is not a contradiction to my formula
if some n has no n+1.
>
No, it literally contradicts your formula
for some n e N to not.have n+1
>
My formula is explicitly valid only for natural numbers.
This is one of Mückenheim's brainfarts.
I guess what he means is:
"1/n - 1/(n+1) > 0" is (especially) valid for (all) natural numbers n ,
or something like that.
To state that a closed formula / sentence / statement "is valid ... for natural numbers" is just mumbo-jumbo.