Jesse Mazer skrev:
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:33:47 +0200
> > From: tor...@dsv.su.se
> > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
> >
> >
> > Brian Tenneson skrev:
> >>
> >> How can BIGGEST+1 be a natural number but not belong to the set
> 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:
>>
>>
>>> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:33:47 +0200
>>> From: tor...@dsv.su.se
>>> To: everything-list@googlegroup
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
> Jesse Mazer skrev:
>
>>
>>> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 08:33:47 +0200
>>> From: tor...@dsv.su.se
>>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>>> Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian Tenneson skrev:
>>>
How can BIGGEST+1 be a
> I wonder if anyone has tried work with a theory of finite numbers: where
> BIGGEST+1=BIGGEST or BIGGEST+1=-BIGGEST as in some computers?
There is a group of faculty who address this problem directly in my
department. But any general-purpose computer can emulate true, unlimited
natural number
Bruno,
Before I leave on holiday, I am following your advice to make my own
table of symbols. Let me ask first whether the smaller rectangles have a
different reference from the larger ones as seen in your example below?
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: eve
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
> Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:17:03 +0200
> From: tor...@dsv.su.se
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
>
>
> Jesse Mazer skrev:
>>
>>
>>> Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:48:21 +0200
>>> From: tor...@dsv.su.se
>>> To: everything-list@googlegroup
Marty,
> Bruno,
>Before I leave on holiday, I am following your advice to
> make my own table of symbols. Let me ask first whether the smaller
> rectangles have a different reference from the larger ones as seen
> in your example below?
We do have problem of symbols, with the m
Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
> > Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 21:17:03 +0200
> > From: tor...@dsv.su.se
> > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries
> >
> >
> > Jesse Mazer skrev:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 16:48:21 +0200
> >>> From: tor...@dsv.
If it helps, here's a screenshot of how the symbols are supposed to look:
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3345/picture2uzk.png
From: marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The seven step-Mathematical preliminaries 2
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 22:36:01 +0200
Marty,
Bruno,
(I'll be here till Tuesday.) Evidently, the symbol you are using for "such
that" is being shown on my screen as a small rectangle. In the copy below, I
see two rectangles before the A=, two before the B=, two after the A, two after
the B. The UNION symbol (inverted "U") shows up but is followe
Bruno,
I've encountered some difficulty with the examples below. You say
that "in extension" describes exhaustion or quasi-exhaustion. And you give
the example: "B = {3, 6, 9, 12, ... 99}".
Then you define "in intension" with exactly the same type of set:
"Example: Let A
2009/6/6 Torgny Tholerus :
>
> 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 contradictin
On 06 Jun 2009, at 23:54, m.a. wrote:
> (I'll be here till Tuesday.) Evidently, the symbol you are using for
> "such that" is being shown on my screen as a small rectangle. In the
> copy below, I see two rectangles before the A=, two before the B=,
> two after the A, two after the B. The U
>I've encountered some difficulty with the examples below.
> You say that "in extension" describes exhaustion or quasi-
> exhaustion. And you give the example: "B = {3, 6, 9, 12, ... 99}".
>Then you define "in intension" with exactly the same type
> of set: "Exampl
On this date, you made the following correction: "You cannot write D = 4*x
..., " But you wrote D= 4*x in the exercise just above it. I don't get
the distinction between your use of the equation and mine.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
Exercise 2: I will
m.a. wrote:
> *Bruno,*
> * I've encountered some difficulty with the examples below.
> You say that "in extension" describes exhaustion or
> quasi-exhaustion. And you give the example: "**B = {3, 6, 9, 12, ...
> 99}".*
> * Then you define "in intension" with exactly the s
Bruno,
When I tried to copy the symbols from the URL cited below, I
found that my email server was not able to reproproduce the intersection or the
union symbol. See below:
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
∅ ∪ A = I see two rectangl
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 2009/6/6 Torgny Tholerus :
>
>> 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:
Okay, so is it true to say that things written in EXTENSION are never in
formula style but are translated into formulas when we put them into INTENSION
form? You can see that my difficulty with math arises from an inability to
master even the simplest definitions.marty a.
- Origi
m.a. wrote:
> *Okay, so is it true to say that things written in EXTENSION are never
> in formula style but are translated into formulas when we put them
> into INTENSION form? You can see that my difficulty with math
> arises from an inability to master even the simplest definitions.
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
