In article <fd0fc507-a0ea-4e5b-bddd-2ac4e1af82f3@g16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 5 Mrz., 22:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 5, 9:53 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5 Mrz., 12:45, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 5, 10:57 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > On 4 Mrz., 23:56, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > What do you think this was a quote of? > > > > > One of my statements. > > > > Nope. This is my claim, put into the language we > > have now developed. It is equivalent to saying > > that L_m has no fixed maximum value, something we > > both agree with. > > > > Indeed our argument is now only over language. > > We both agree that the line L_m contains > > every FIS of d, and that only L_m will do. > > We only disagree about my claim that calling > > L_m "a single line of the list" is silly.- > > L_m is a single line if m is a natural number.
But any such m. by reason of not being able to have a successor, cannot be a natural.
> Would you prefer to call L_m infinitely many lines?
It is a "last line" in a list which does not have any last lines. > > But more important: you do no longer claim that the list can be > completed and that larger infinities can exist?
Perhaps not in Wolkenmuekenheim, but infinities can and do exist outside it. --
