In article <a0b0ef4b-84f9-43b2-8437-02a32a915e8e@n10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 9 Dez., 20:50, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Dec 9, 3:15 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > infinite? This question is answered with a resounding no. It remains > > > as before and as ever in mathematics: > > > > > 1) Every FISON is finite. > > > 2) There are never two FISONs that contain more than one of them. > > > 3) There are all naturals in the FISONs that satisfy (1) and (2). > > > > True but irrelevant. Even in Wolkenmuekenheim you can have a > > sequence of FISONs without a last fixed element. > > Any such sequence will have the potentially infinite set N > > as the set of natural numbers in its elements. > > In Wolkenmuekenheim, such a sequence will have a "necessary" FISON > > (your definition). > > However, the "necessary" FISON of one sequence may not be > > in another sequence > > Irrelevant. The necessary FISON is always only one.
But every "necessary" fison must have a successor. > > But all that is completely irrelevant, as I do not claim that my model > is correct and as I do not base my reasoning upon that basis.
You then confess that your model is incorrect, at jast! > > My reasoning
Your what?
> shows that, according to mathematics, all natural numbers > fit into one (potentially in-) finite set.
mathematics shows no such thing. WM's matheology pretendes to show it but even there WM has no logically sound arguments.
> Therefore there is no set | > N with a cardinal number larger than every natural number.
There is in ZFC and most other set theories accepted by the majority of the mathematics world. And, as far as I can see, the only world that accepts WM's perverse version of set theory is WM's own Wolkenmuekenheim > > This is my proof. Nothing else is claimed.
In that, WM already claims more than he delivers. --
