In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 1 Apr., 15:24, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 24, 7:09 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 24 Mrz., 16:59, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 24, 4:30 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > Have you shown that "one can or cannot". > > > > > > So WM has made two claims > > > > > > Given ZFC: I cannot show if one can or cannot > > > > > Wrong. Do you really find it necessary to lie in order to maintain > > > your position? > > > > 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 because my proof rests > > WM: upon the premise that actual infinity is a meaningful notion. > > And for that case my proof is valid. So you are a liar.
Actually, outside of Wolkenmuekenheim, WM's claimed proofs are rarely, if ever, valid. And WM is hardly in a position to carp about lyings, as he is the worst offender in this NG, with the possible exception of Arch. PLut. --