In article <f6mdnWDVEcc1eNHMnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com>, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote:
> On 3/22/2013 5:11 PM, William Hughes wrote: > > On Mar 22, 10:49 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > >> All sets are finite, but not fixed. > > > > I did not claim that all sets in > > Potential infinity are fixed. > > They are finite and thus not > > different from finite sets. > > > > WH: Infinite sets are different from finite sets > > WH: but they do not contain anything > > WH: "beyond any finite set". > > > > WM: Of course. > > > >> There is no upper threshold, > >> contrary to every finite set. > > > > More Wolkenmuekenheim logic > > > > Every finite set has an upper threshold.
False, since not all finite sets are ordered. > > > > A potentially infinite set > > does not have an upper threshold
In order for something to be a set is any standard set theory, its membership cannot be ambiguous, each object must be unambiguously a member of the set or unambiguously not a member of that set.
Thus what WM calls his sets "with no upper threshold" are not sets at all, at least not anywhere outside of Wolkenmuekenheim.
> > > > A potentially infinite set is finite.
So what WM claimes as his " potentially infinite sets" are not sets at all anywhere outside Wolkenmuekenheim. > > > > And, when properly developed in a constructive > framework, the objects to which that statement > might apply are clearly understood as such.