In article <f43104c0-7b0a-4154-ae05-ef6ded6849ab@h17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 23 Feb., 22:23, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <048af7af-14e7-4d6c-a641-b2e7304ac...@7g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 23 Feb., 10:59, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 23, 12:03 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Does > > > > > > > For every natural number n, P(n) > > > > > is true. > > > > > > > imply > > > > > > > There is no natural number m such > > > > > that P(m) is false. > > > > > > Does > > > > > > There is a line, l, of L > > > > such that l has property P > > > > > > imply > > > > > > There exists a natural number > > > > m such that the mth line of L > > > > has property P. > > > > > > ? > > > > > Can you identify a FIS of d that is not in a line l of L? > > > You cannot. Nevertheless d consists of FIS of lines of L, and of > > > nothing else, by definition and by construction of d. > > > > Does Wm claim existence of any line l of L for which there is no FIS of > > d exceeding it in length? > > Of course. L is the list consisting of its lines. Obviously there > exists no line of L which is longer than every line of L. Obviously > there exists a line of L which is not surpassed by any line of L.
In order for this to be the case, there mist be a line of L which there is no successor line, which is like claiming that there is a natural number for which there is no successor natural number, which state of affairs does no occur in any form of standard mathematics but only in such strange and corrupted places as Wolkenmuekenheim.
> However, this line cannot be found. > > > > Is it not true even in Wolkenmuekenheim that for every nth line of L of > > length n, that the n+1_st FIS of d, of length n+1, is longer? > > Consider the sets A = even naturals, B = odd naturals. For every a of > A there is a larger b of B. Does that prove that the odds are in > favour of the odds? How stupid your arguing is. Incredible!
Not as incredibly stupid as WM's argument itself.
As usual WM deliberately overlooks the obvious.
It is WM's ignorant argument that is incredible, to have forgotten the obvious fact that for every b in B there is also a larger a in A, so that neither set is thus favored. --
