On 2/11/2013 2:39 AM, WM wrote: > On 10 Feb., 23:59, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> On 2/10/2013 3:55 PM, Virgil wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>>> Please explain "existing set". >> >>>> An existing set is a set that is finite or potentially infinite. >> >>> That would require all of them to already exist, implying that no new >>> ones could ever be created, or invented, or discovered. >> >>> Thus in WMYTHEOLOGY there can never be anything new. >> >> What would be the consequence of that invariance? >> >> Every potentially infinite set already exists. > > Who said so? > I said if existing, then finite or pot infinite.
You said "A is B". Not "if A, then B"
> Now you return if pot infinite then existing. > Logic? > Try to understand: A ==> B does not imply B ==> A. > Then you may go on to learn logic step by step, but not before > understanding this (small step for mankind, but obviously big step for > you). >> >> Thus, potential infinity is immanent infinity. > > No. >> >> This is Cantor's argument. > > Yes he made the same step. And his followers gladly accepted it. He > exchanged quantifyers on his "extended integers": > "For every integer n, there exists integer m: m >= n" > to > "There exists integer m, such that for every integer n: m >= n."
Now that I have figured out what mathematics you are invoking, I can answer your assertions concerning "exchange of quantifiers".
Sadly, in spite of what may even be considered elegant, it is not worth explaining. It is you who has the religious agenda that blinds.