In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 27 Feb., 14:50, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 27, 1:04 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 26 Feb., 22:54, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Now no one can stop you using whatever > > > > terminology you want. However, do not > > > > expect that you can use idiotic terminology > > > > without being considered an idiot. > > > > > But one can use such arguing without being considered as such? > > > > Nope. > > > > > Remember: Your point of view requires, what you often have emphasized: > > > There are all FIS of d in the list, but there is no line containing > > > them. This implies that they are distributed among several lines > > > > or that m, the index of line they are in is > > a variable natural number and > > that it is silly to > > say that there is one line that contains > > every FIS when this "one" line has a variable > > as index. > > Do you prefer your argument? Or do you think it is not better than > mine?
Even if WH's arguments were obvouisly wrong, which they are not, they would still be better than WM's. > > If you think your opinion is better, more logical, than mine, why do > you think so?
Because to everyone other than WM himself, it is obvious. > > We can prove that there is no knowable natural number of a line that > contains all FIS of d. Ok, we speak of a variable that is not fixed.
That "WE" is singular, since WM's "proofs" are never valid outside WMytheology, so only convince WM himself. > > We can prove that there is no knowable natural number that is the > first one of the infinite set that you claim.
Outside of WMytheology, the first natural number of that infinite set of them that we claim is, depending on one's preferences, either zero or one. --