In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 22 Mrz., 16:31, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 22, 10:05 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > If you want to > > > > remove all of the lines you have to remove the set of all > > > > lines that are indexed by a natural number. > > > > > But I don't want to remove a set. > > > > We have the set of lines. You do not want to leave > > any of the lines. > > I do not want this or that. > I simply prove
WM never "simply proves". The vast majority claims of doing so are not pof at all, at least in the world of honest mathematics from which WM is self-exiled.
> that for every line l_n the following property is true: > Line l_n and all its predecessors do not in any way influence (neither > decrease nor increase) the union of all lines, namely |N.
True, but in spite of WM, not because WM has proved it.
> So you meanwhile are convinced that induction concerns whole actually > infinite sets? Thsi is new.
It is at least as old as Peano. And infinite sets are at least as old as Zeno.
For any set to be inductive, according to standard definitions of induction like Peano's, there must at least be one function on that set which injects that set to a proper subset of itself.
At least outside Wolkenmuekenheim.
There are no not-actually-infinite sets outside Wolkenmuekenheim which are inductive sets.
And no one but WM can possibly survive inside Wolkenmuekenheim, so it is a lonely and desolate place. --