In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 30 Mrz., 10:17, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 24 Mrz., 18:09, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > The only difference is that in the second case you consider > > > > some subsets of the nodes to be paths, that are not considered > > > > to be paths in the first case. > > > > > Well, that is a correct description. It implies that these additional > > > subsets cannot be distinguished by nodes from the finite subsets > > > > Piffle. It is trivial to distinguish a subset that has a node > > at a last level from a subset that does not have a node > > at a last level. > > No, that is impossible if an infinite path consists of infinitely many > finite subsets.
All infinities consist of infinitely many finite parts. But the infinite set of all naturals is distinguishable be from the infinite set of all FISONs, even though both are infinite, unless, of course, one is using the von Neumann naturals in which each natural is a FISON and vice versa.
But of course, WM, who prides himself on his ignorance of how infiniteness works, wuld not know this.
> It is impossible to distinguish the actually infinite path of 1/pi > from a path that only is built of all finite initial segments of the > path of 1/pi.
It may be so in Wolkenmuekenheim, but a set of only finite approximations to an irrational number can elsewhere be distinguished from the number itself.
WM is under the delusion that what he claims must happen within his WMytheological Wolkenmuekenheim is binding on anything outside that Wolkenmuekenheim, --