On Feb 10, 10:51 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 9 Feb., 17:36, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > the arguments are yours > > > > and the statements are yours- > > > > Of course. But the wrong interpretation is yours. > > > How does one interpret > > we have shown m does not exist > > (your statement) > > > to mean that > > > m might still exist > > > ? > > TND is invalid in the infinite. > > Regards, WM
In Wolkenmeukenheim, we can have for a potentially infinite set
we know that x does not exist we don't know that x does not exist