On 3/22/2013 9:19 PM, Virgil wrote: > 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. > > They are all non-sets. >
Yeah. I missed it on that one.
I have been trying to educate myself on the constructive philosophy as quickly as I can. I was reading more into the statements than had been written.