In article <kil5sl$nd$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Sam Sung <no@mail.invalid> wrote:
> William Hughes schrieb: > > > On Mar 23, 4:15 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > >> On 23 Mrz., 15:01, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Mar 23, 2:43 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > >> > >>> > On 23 Mrz., 10:31, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > We both agree that you have not shown that we can > >>> > > do something which leaves no lines and does not > >>> > > change the union. > >> > >>> > No, of course we do not. > >> > >>> WH: this does not mean that one can do something > >>> WH: that does not leave any of the lines of K > >>> WH: and does not change the union of all lines. > >> > >>> WM: That is clear > >> > >> Please complete this sentence: "That is clear because my proof rests > >> upon the premise that actual infinity is a meaningful notion." > >> > >> If actual infinity was existing as a meaningful notion, then we could > >> remove all finite lines without changin the union in any way. > > > > nope > > actual infinity existing as a meaningful notion, does not mean > > we could remove all finite lines without changing the union > > in any way. > > > > You have agreed that, "under the assumption that actual > > infinity is a meaningful notion" > > you have not shown that we could remove all finite lines > > without changing the union in any way. > > Its always the same natural idiocy which belongs to the abhoring > ignorant WM so each set in mathematics needs to be "constructed" > before they "really exist" which is why this asshole feels entitled > to expect something like a process of "reverse construction" and > which "must be implied" in a the "natural way" that WM feels being > the only "really truth" so the imbecile WM thinks to "win" by > "decomposing" infinite sets into finite ones.
When it is, in fact, only WM's brain that is decomposing? Fits the facts! --
