On 2 Apr., 00:19, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 1, 10:47 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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. > > 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- That is clear because my proof rests upon the premise that actual infinity is a meaningful notion. I am glad that you have recognized that. A ==> B & ~B implies ~A.
