Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rochester.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!rochester!stuart
From: stuart@rochester.UUCP (Stuart Friedberg)
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: A new paradox? (spoiler?)
Message-ID: <2939@rochester.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Sep-83 18:33:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: rocheste.2939
Posted: Thu Sep 15 18:33:03 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 16-Sep-83 20:49:07 EDT
References: <406@5941ux.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Lines: 5

The inductive step is not legal because your base case is "1".
The set S(1) .. S(N-1) = S(1) and the set S(2) .. S(N) is null.
If you could show the statement for the case N = 2, then the
induction would follow. It's awfully hard to show that any two
arbitrary numbers or even any two consecutive numbers are the same!