From: MoeBlee on
mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:
> Every path is related to two edges which are not related to any other
> path. And that is easy enough to see.

I can't comment since, other than ostensively, you won't define the
relation you have in mind when you say 'are not related'. I offered to
be an audience for your argument if you would define your terms, but
you decline.

MoeBlee

From: Han.deBruijn on
stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: why I am

> talking about physical problems anyway? The balls and vase problem
> is not a physical problem. Mathematics is perfectly capable
> of handling non physical problems, despite your cryptic insistence
> that "mathematics is not independent of physics".

Sure. Case closed. As usual. And that's the end of our debate, huh?

Han de Bruijn

From: stephen on
Han.deBruijn(a)dto.tudelft.nl wrote:
> stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: why I am

>> talking about physical problems anyway? The balls and vase problem
>> is not a physical problem. Mathematics is perfectly capable
>> of handling non physical problems, despite your cryptic insistence
>> that "mathematics is not independent of physics".

> Sure. Case closed. As usual. And that's the end of our debate, huh?

> Han de Bruijn

Given that you seem intent on snipping most of what I say,
and are just responding in sentence fragments, I suppose so.

Stephen

From: Virgil on
In article <1162284771.696211.178020(a)b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Albrecht" <albstorz(a)gmx.de> wrote:

> Sebastian Holzmann schrieb:
>
> > mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de <mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > "dirty" is a property which without the axiom of dirt is as well
> > > defined as "infinite" without the axiom of infinity.
> >
> > No. A set x (which is here to denote an element of a model M of ZF-INF)
> > is called "finite" if x satisfies one of the following conditions:
> >
> > 0: x does not have an element
> > 1: x has exactly one element
> > 2: x has exactly two elements
> > and so on
> >
> > otherwise, x is called "infinite". Where do I need the axiom of infinity
> > to do this?
>
> Since there is no x which don't follow one of your conditions 0, 1, 2,

Such claims, made without proofs, are irrelevant.
From: Virgil on
In article <f328c$45470fd4$82a1e228$20321(a)news2.tudelft.nl>,
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote:

> David Marcus wrote:
> >
> > I guess your definition of "mathematics" is different from mine.
>
> Yes. Like your definition of "physics" is different from mine.
>
> Han de Bruijn

Fair enough.

In another post, HdB claimed to have physical evidence that a
discontinuity would halt time, or something equally idiotic.

So we are not at all distressed to hear him say that his definition of
physics is quite different from ours.