|
|
Re: Matheology § 214
Posted:
Feb 11, 2013 4:04 AM
|
|
On 11 Feb., 09:53, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> 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"
An existing set is finite or pot infinity. "set" is an object,
"finite" is a property.
My wife is beautiful.
Not every person with the property being beautiful is my wife.
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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".
Better refrain from that attempt until you will have understood how to
distinguish (in k=1 steps) between a noun and an adjective and its
logical relations.
Regards, WM
|
|
