Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 2009/6/6 Torgny Tholerus <tor...@dsv.su.se>:
>> Jesse Mazer skrev:
>>>> Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:48:21 +0200
>>>> From: tor...@dsv.su.se
>>>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>>>> Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
>>>> Jesse Mazer skrev:
>>>>> Here you're just contradicting yourself. If you say BIGGEST+1 "is then
>>>>> a natural number", that just proves that the set N was not in fact the
>>>>> set "of all natural numbers". The alternative would be to say
>>>>> BIGGEST+1 is *not* a natural number, but then you need to provide a
>>>>> definition of "natural number" that would explain why this is the case.
>>>> It depends upon how you define "natural number". If you define it by: n
>>>> is a natural number if and only if n belongs to N, the set of all
>>>> natural numbers, then of course BIGGEST+1 is *not* a natural number. In
>>>> that case you have to call BIGGEST+1 something else, maybe "unnatural
>>>> number".
>>> OK, but then you need to define what you mean by "N, the set of all
>>> natural numbers". Specifically you need to say what number is
>>> "BIGGEST". Is it arbitrary? Can I set BIGGEST = 3, for example? Or do
>>> you have some philosophical ideas related to what BIGGEST is, like the
>>> number of particles in the universe or the largest number any human
>>> can conceptualize?
>> It is rather the last, the largest number any human can conceptualize.
>> More natural numbers are not needed.
> What is the last number human can invent ? Your theory can't explain
> why addition works... If N is limited, then addition can and will (in
> human lifetime) create "number" which are still finite and not in N.

It is very unlikely that anyone will get to the number 10^10^100 by 
addition.  :-)

Would agree that a any given time there is a largest number which has 
been conceived by a human being?

> N can be defined solelly as the successor function, you don't need
> anything else. You just have to assert that the function is true
> always.
>>> Also, any comment on my point about there being an infinite number of
>>> possible propositions about even a finite set,
>> There is not an infinite number of possible proposition.
> Prove it please.

That would seem to turn on the meaning of "possible".  Many (dare I say 
"infinitely many") things are logically possible which are not 
nomologically possible (although the posters on this list seem to doubt 


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to