On Apr 29, 4:47 pm,
Zaljo...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes of course. it is a good point the one you've raised. and and it is
a good thing that you've writtin the proof. But I realized what you
said even without knowing the exact formal proof. It is clear that the
culprit was in the definition of 'total' that's why I changed it long
before you posted this proof.
This doesn't matter, but just to be clear, you changed the definition
after I mentioned that {0} is finite by the definition you had given,
then William Elliot asked me about that, then I gave him the full
proof. The proof I posted was not in consideration of your changed
defintion but rather in regard to your first definition, as I was
being asked about my original remark that was in regard to your first
definition.
Anyway, how much time have you spent thinking about whether your new
definition is correct? Have you even tried to road test it? And what
is the point of such definitions other than as exercises?
MoeBlee
