|
|
On 30 Oct 2006 19:47:06 -0800, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
>Lester Zick wrote:
>> On 30 Oct 2006 10:46:23 -0800, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Lester Zick wrote:
>> >> On 30 Oct 2006 08:34:21 -0800, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Lester Zick wrote:
>> >> >> On 28 Oct 2006 12:54:51 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >"There is a least integer" and "there is a least real"
>> >> >are both false.
>> >>
>> >> They are?
>> >
>> >Yes. If you disagree, perhaps you can name me the minimum
>> >element of the sets Z and R.
>>
>> Or perhaps you can show us how it is "there is a least integer" and
>> "there is a least real" are both false since it's your contention not
>> mine.
>>
>> >> Perhaps you should take that up with theologians then.
>> >
>> >We are discussing mathematics. In the mathematical objects
>> >called "the set of integers" and "the set of reals" there is no
>> >least member.
>>
>> Well perhaps you can just prove that since it's your contention not
>> mine?
>
>Why, do you think that there's a least integer? What,
>around -1000?
If 1 is an integer then 1 would be least would it not?
>Proof:
>A least member x0 would have the property that
>x0 <= x for all other members x.
>
>Let x0 be any integer. x0-1 is also an integer, which is <x0.
>Thus x0 can't be a least member.
>
>Similar argument for x0 being any real.
Not if the integers under discussion are positive: is 1 an integer? Is
it positive or negative? It certainly isn't negative unless so stated.
Ergo it is not negative nor are integers negative unless explicitly
qualified. You make one propositional logic error then try to sneak in
an implicit qualification to justify your original error. There are
all kinds of qualifications possible. You don't state them and you
can't use them to argue truth.
~v~~
|
|