In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 7 Dez., 22:28, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <3f5b25b6-ae3f-4a92-96dc-49f872d0c...@c16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > Correct. That is a valuable recognition! But an infinity that is less > > > than a larger infinity forces to believe in such crap. > > > > So you now publicly admit that your whole "triangle" thing is crap! > > -- > > As its existence depends on actual infinity it is obviously a crap.
The existence of actual infinities is irrelevant.
The top vertex and each point on the edges of WM's figure being of any certain nature, it follows that any bottom points, edge or vertex, must be of the same nature, but as they cannot be, regardless of whether actual infinities exist or not, WM's arguments are so full of holes that there is nothing else left but his arrogance in making that ugly argument.
Thus there is no way in any mathematics outside of Wolkenmuekenheim that what WM calls a triangle inside his Wolkenmuekenheim can be a triangle outside of it. --