On 4/6/2013 3:14 PM, WM wrote: > On 6 Apr., 21:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 6, 7:30 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: >> >>> On 6 Apr., 19:02, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> 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.) >> >>>> You cannot. E has a largest element. The set of all finite >>>> lines does not.- >> >>> You contradict yourself. >> >> Nope. "any finite subset of D can be removed", > > Any line that has a follower can be removed. > Proof: The follower contains everything that the union of its > predecessors contain.
Set theory is not WM's theory of monotonic inclusive crayon marks.
Every now and then something not unlike a definition appears in WM's remarks. The term "hanching" was one such definition. But, he never uses them. He merely goes back to misusing mathematical terms that have well-established definition.
> If there are infinitely many lines with followers, then infinitely > many lines can be removed. That's how mathematics works.
> > Please stop your unfounded talking about finite sets which "we cannot > know", and the number of their elements which has no upper threshold > and remaining nonempty sets of natural numbers that have no first > element and other unmathematical nonsense.
Is it possible to pretend that finite sets are that confusing?