On 02/10/2013 12:40 PM, William Hughes wrote: > 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 > > true at the same time. > > Strange place Wolkenmuekenheim.
I have an insight: It is impossible to prove that the transfinite ("god") does not exist.
[ NB: but proving ZFC inconsistent is not completely out of the question, although WM does no such thing.]
-- dracut:/# lvm vgcfgrestore File descriptor 9 (/.console_lock) leaked on lvm invocation. Parent PID 993: sh Please specify a *single* volume group to restore.