In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 3 Mrz., 23:35, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 3, 10:56 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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. > > > 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. > > > > Indeed, but the question is whether there is one single line of the > > list that contains every FISON. We know that such a line > > cannot be findable. There is the unfindable, variable, > > a different one for each person, line l_m. However, calling > > l_m "one single line of the list" is silly. > > On the other hand, you claim that there are infinitely many lines of > the list required to contain all FISONs. But you cannot name the first > line of that required set.
WM's last sentence above implies that there is only one such set, but that reveals WM's total misunderstanding of the actuality, since Any and EVERY infinite set of lines is sufficient and any one of the infinite sets of lines, but no particular one, is necessary.
> You cannot even name one line that belongs > to that infinite set.
To which of the infinitely many satisfactorily infinite sets which are sufficient does WM refer when he speaks of "that infinite set??
> So is your claim not infinitely more silly than > mine?
We are not clever enough to be sillier than WM. > > What is the advantage of your position?