On 6 Apr., 18:34, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 1:01 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > On 6 Apr., 12:02, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 6, 11:42 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 5 Apr., 23:50, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Then G has an infinite number of > > > > > elements, but you cannot name a single element of G.- > > > > > In D\E we have another situation. If someone claims that D\E contains > > > > an element e, then we can prove that it is not an element of D\E by > > > > induction, since E is an inductive set. This makes D\E being the empty > > > > set. > > > > Nope, we are not in Wolkenmuekenheim. E does not change. > > > Then you should not dare to name one of the elements of D\E. > > I would immediately be able to prove that it is not in D\E. > > Tell me which E you want to use. I will > name an element that is in D\E.
I will not leave any line that has a follower, i.e., I will use all finite lines (given that "all lines" is a meaningful notion for infinite sets.)
But since the present thread has become too long and too noisy with unrelated discussions, please look into § 238. There I have already accepted your position.