In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 8 Jul., 19:01, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: > > "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message > > > > news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > > > > > Ask yourself the question: What should remain inside? > > > > I think you miss the point: I was asking for a valid proof. > > How can an invalid theory generate a valid proof? > > Regards, WM
Wm has claimed it invalid, but, as usual, is unable, or at least unwilling, to provide ay proof of his claim.
The "Depends on the conditions" solution of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross%E2%80%93Littlewood_paradox> would seem to be the only one entirely compatible with any standard form of set theory, as it is the one which regards each ball as an object with a permanently fixed identity distinguishing it from all others.
But whenever infinite sets are involved, WM gets WMAtheological. --