On Oct 24, 8:22 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 24, 10:48 pm, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > But stating things clearly and unambiguously so that your readers can > > understand your point is surely not useless. > > You're the biggest mob of pontificating con men in modern science! > > THIS IS THE PROPOSITION THAT IS BASIS OF WM'S ARGUMENT. > > AN INFINITE SEQUENCE OF LINEAR INCREASING WIDTH OBJECTS > HAS INFINITE WIDTH.
That part of his argument was never at issue. What he then says, however, namely that there must be an element or a row that has infinite width --- that part is not derivable.
> If you fail to state TRUTH or FALSITY to the above then your infinite > sequence of clarifications are *piffle*. > > TRUE OR FALSE ???? > > Herc