On 4 Mrz., 23:56, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 4, 6:57 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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 > > Let K be a (possibly potentially infinite) set of > lines of L. Then > > Every FISON of d is in a findable line of K > iff K does not have a findable last line
No, false quote. Every findable FIS of d is in a findable line of L 1 12 123 ...,
since L is identical with the FIS of d. (K will not improve anything.) > > WM's claim: silly
Only for those who deny the possibility of identity for potentially infinite sets.
> > WH's claim: not silly
more than silly, namely a proof of unquestioning belief in nonsense. "All FIS of d are in infinitely many lines." Wrong, since infinity does not change the condition that there are never two or more lines of L that contain more than one single line.
WH's claim is tantamount to the claims: "An infinite sequence of W's contains an M" or "An infinite sequence of finite natural numbers contains an infinite narural number".
A very instructive example for the detrimental influence of matheology on innocent pupils.
