In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 27 Nov., 11:43, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes: > > > We are talking about a vase which is never emptied completely! > > > > > Hence it cannot be empty unless "infinity" is identical to "never". > > > But this describes potential infinity and excludes phantasies like > > > Cantor's finished diagonal number. > > > > But you lose control at infinity! > > > So does Cantor.
Cantor maintains a good deal more control with infiniteness that WM does. > > > So your "hence" doesn't work. > > It works if there is anyone who does not lose control at infinity.
Since you have just, in effect, claimed no one has, your "hence" fails to work by your own argument.
> That's enough.
It is way too much of your nonsense. > > Regards, WM