In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 23 Mrz., 17:40, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > > The only reason you may speak of a "proof" is > > because of the extreme patience that WH has > > spent trying to find anything that approximates > > rational discourse among your statements. > > No WH said, that the proof is correct. And every other mathematician, > to whom I have shown this proof, has recognized it as such. It seems > your intellect must be blamed to be too narrow to recognize the proof. > Perhaps the reason is that you are not a mathematicain? > > Regards, WM
While fom may not be formally a mathematician, he is a far better one than WM, who only pretends at it.
fom, at least, can reason straight, while WM can only reason crookedly.
WM claims that one can remove from a non-empty set every member of that set and still have the original set with all its original members.
It does not matter who WM claims agrees with that lie, outside of the woeful wobblings of WMytheology, it is false. --