In article <4eb8c096-c690-4f70-bc1b-7b015d4aa61b@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 24 Feb., 00:34, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 23, 5:18 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ====================== > > > > > > Can you identify a FIS of d that is not in a line l of L? > > > > > No > > > > > > You cannot. Nevertheless d consists of FIS of lines of L, and of > > > > nothing else, by definition and by construction of d. > > > > Or do you object to this fact? > > > > > No. > > > > > =============================== > > > > > Why then are you raising the impression as if you were trying to argue > > > that d is not with *all its existence* in the lines of the list? > > > > I agree that d "with *all its existence*" > > is in the lines of the list. > > I do not agree that this means > > d with all its existence is in > > one line of the list.- > > So you think that d is in more than one lines. But that is impossible, > because every line of the list contains, by construction, all that the > previous lines contain.
What we think is that all your lines are in d, which is, in a sense, only the union of all your infinitely many lines.
> And certainly you don't claim that you can > find more than one line that would be required to contain what one > line contains?
No one of your lines contains its own successor so no one of your lines can contain the line d which contains all successors.
>So how can you support your disagreement? How do you > solve that contradiction?
By not entering your WMytheology, which is the only place that those alleged contradictions can exist. --
