Re: Simple enough for every reader?

WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> writes:

On 23.05.2025 15:21, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@tha.de> writes:
 

On 21.05.2025 03:17, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

...

Why is college (or maybe technical college) not a good translation of
that term?
>

According to my dictionaries Colleges are parts of universities, but also
institutions not offering degrees attended by secretaries or
hairdressers. According to this translation the Technische Hochschule
Augsburg consists of several colleges. But the faculty of general studies
covers the full university of applied sciences. All students can attend my
courses.

Your dictionary is very odd.

>
Langenscheidt Collins e-Großwörterbuch Englisch 5.0

Can you quote the text for me?  I'd like to see what it says about
hairdressers and secretaries.  I found that part very odd.

Do you disregard this mathematical proof
https://www.whitman.edu/mathematics/higher_math_online/section04.10.html
?

Yes, ...

Good to know.

>
{1} has infinitely many (ℵo) successors.
If {1, 2, 3, ..., n} has infinitely many (ℵo) successors, then {1, 2, 3,
..., n, n+1} has infinitely many (ℵo) successors. For every n that can be
defined.
>
Do you disregard this mathematical proof?

I will consider it if you can write it correctly.  The last apparent
sentence is not a sentence.  Did you mean to put that last part in front
of the "If ..." or was there supposed to be something after it?  But
most importantly, it does not appear to be a proof.  It has the shape of
a proof by induction, but the usual conclusion (some statement about
every natural) is missing.  Is it supposed to be just a proof that every
natural has infinitely many successors?

--
Ben.