In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 8 Jul., 18:46, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: > > "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message > > > > news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > > > > > > > > > On 8 Jul., 17:25, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Jul 8, 10:32 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: > > > > >> > Well, I am glad we all agree that the vase (provably!) does *not* in > > >> > fact > > >> > end up empty (*). > > > > >> How do you conclude that? We seem to be agreed that there are no > > >> finitely labeled balls in the vase. If you have a deep set > > >> psycho-sexual need to be able to say that a vase that > > >> does not contain any finitely labeled balls is not empty > > >> I suppose you can put something in the vase, e.g. > > >> you can have non-finitely labeled balls (where they come from > > >> I have no idea). > > > > > There is no chnace that all are outside because there are not all. > > > There is every ball and behind every ball there are most balls. > > > Mathematics gives anotther limit than set theory > > > > <snip> > > > > No, set theory does not give a different limit, the argument is simply > > itself wrong. Otherwise, please point to a proof in the language of set > > theory. > > - There are all balls. (Actual infinity) > - For every ball we can determine the step when it will be removed.