Virgil
Posts:
8,833
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: ZFC and God
Posted:
Jan 25, 2013 7:07 PM
|
|
In article
<3cff19c6-f362-4ef4-9609-3159bd5f9c73@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 25 Jan., 19:52, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> > >> Is t_i(i) also defined for every i in N?
> >
> > > Yes, of course, with absolute certainty.
> >
> > >> Assuming you will say yes, then I must ask:
> >
> > >> Is d(i) therefore defined for every i in N?
> >
> > > Yes, of course, with absolute certainty.
> >
> > > And nothing of that takes us out of the domain of all terminating
> > > decimals, because ;
> >
> > >> > In ZF every n in N is finite.
> >
> > > and with it every FISON.
> >
> > Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet.
> >
> > You agree that, for every i in N, d(i) is defined.
> >
> > I suppose you also agree that, for every i in N, d(i) != 0 and
> > d(i) != 9, right?
> >
> > Okay, so d(i) is defined for every i in N, and d(i) is non-zero and
> > not nine.
> >
> > Clearly, d is a non-terminating decimal.
>
> The set of all FISONs is not terminating. Is there a non-terminating
> FISON? No.
If a set of all FISONs exists at all, which that above statement
concedes, then the union all members of that set is a set, after which,
exist decimals with a digit for each member of that union.
WM cannot have it both ways.
>
> Try to understand that and evaluate the consequences. It is useless to
> go on unless you got it that we work in the domain of terminating
> decimals.
Which hellhole WM condemns himself to work in is irrelevant to anyone
else, as others can easily work elsewhere, and do.
--
|
|
