In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 30 Mai, 23:05, Virgil <virg...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > In article > > <eebb8310-e58d-4f85-9eda-37af9b74b...@c19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 30 Mai, 00:31, Virgil <virg...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > > > > But if there are only finitely many elements in that universal set, then > > > > WM's potentially infinite sets, being of necessity subsets of a finite > > > > universal set, can not be potentially infinite, as they must eventually > > > > exhaust their finite universal set. > > > > > Your universe of numbers is all numbers that you can construct. If you > > > increase your capabilities, your universe grows. That's why it is > > > infinite. > > > > If all sets are finite, but ever changing as WM insists, then one can > > never have a set theory at all, as sets, including universal sets if > > any, do not change. > > This is stubborn nonsense. Of course sets are conceivable that can > change.
They have yet to be conceived in any mathematical set theory that I am acquainted with. The only possible construction that might serve would be set-valued functions of time, but even there, for any fixed time, there would have to be a fixed set.
> The complete sets like N have only been introduced because > Cantor had a strong religious affinity.
Wm must have a strong religious affinity of his own,believing God speaks directly to him, to hold that N cannot be a set.