In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 3 Mrz., 17:36, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 3, 12:41 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > the potentially infinite set of every natural number > > is always finite - up to every natural number.
Then is never a set, since its membership is ambiguous. Either than or is infinitely many sets
> If you don't like that > recognition, try to name a number that does not belong to a FISON. > This set is always in one line. You should understand that every > number is in and hence every FISON is a line of the list.
But the list of lines in never in any one line because for every line there is necessarly a successor line. > > Unfortunately you are inconsequent.
Unfortunately WM is incompetent.
> You claim that there are infinitely many lines necessary in the list > to contain all natural numbers. But for every of these claimed lines I > can prove that it is not required in that alleged set of lines that > contain all natural numbers.
ANY infinite set of lines will suffice to contain all naturals, but no finite set of lines will suffice.
A fact that is trivially obviously from the requirement that every natural have a successor natural larger than it. > > Note, this is what can be proven mathematically.
NOTE, what WM claims to be able to prove he never manages to prove.
> Your claim, however, is purely unmathematical and unlogic matheology.
What WM claims and WE object to, that is what is purely unmathematical and unlogic WMytheology. --