In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.)
The above is ambiguous, at least in English, as it is not clear whether L is being compared with a single FIS of d or the collection of all of them.
L, being the list of finite initial sequences or FISs of d, is not the same thing as d itself, as d does not have any FIS as a MEMBER, but only as a finite subset or finite subsequence.
Wm has often in the past shown a blithe disregard for the distinction between being a member of a given set and a subset of that given set, and is now doing it again.
Such distinctions are important outside of WMytheology however much they are ignored within WMytheology.
> > > > WM's claim: silly > > Only for those who deny the possibility of identity for potentially > infinite sets.
Outside WMytheology there is no satisfactory set theory allowing anything like what WM calls "potentially infinite sets". > > > > > > WH's claim: not silly > > more than silly, namely a proof of unquestioning belief in nonsense.
Nowhere nearly as nonsensical as a set of naturals in which some natural does not have a successor.
> "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.
While the "ALL FIS" may be a bit ambiguous it is trivially true that EVERY FIS of d is in infinitely many lines of L ( all but finitely many of them). > > 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".
That may be in WMytheology, but not elsewhere > > A very instructive example for the detrimental influence of matheology > on innocent pupils.
WM is the only one here known to be destructive to pupils, by forcing them to swallow lies.. --