In article <98f9bb71-e491-4335-ae66-617ec9d86dd2@w3g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 3 Mrz., 11:37, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 3, 11:22 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 3 Mrz., 00:08, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > But "there are all FIS" is not a contradiction, if they must be in > > > more than one line of a list that contains only lines that contain > > > everything that is in all preceding lines? > > > Amazing. > > > > The above just says that if there all all > > FIS then the list has no last line. > > Not Amazing. > > The above may say what you like. It is provably false.
But WM has yet to prove it false to the satisfaction of anyone but himself. At the issue is whether there is no such proof, or whether WM is just too incompetent to produce one.
I suspect it to be both.
> Why don't you simply try to find a potentially infinity set of natural > numbers (i.e. excluding matheological dogmas like "all prime numbers" > or "all even numbers") that is not in one single line?
Why desn't WM simply try to find a potentially infinite set of natural numbers that is not in one single set?
Any countable set can be "listed" in one, possible infinite, line.
> You will and > must fail.
With regard to proofs of WM's claims like this, he will and must fail, too.
He even fails to provide valid proofs of his rare claim which are correct.
> Therefore, with respect to natural numbers that can > individually be defined, you state a falsity.
Wm often does state a falsity but has too often shown himself unable to prove anyone else does, even when they have done. --
