In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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. > > > > 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. > > > E is not D so D\E is not the empty set. > > Prove it by naming an element of D that is not in E! For well-defined > and fixed sets, this would be possible - in mathematics at least.
But E is not fixed, at least not outside Wolkenmuekenheim. E is any one of infinitely many suitable sets, but not any particular one of them.
If WM claims that E is a fixed set, let him specify which set it is and show that his specification denotes a unique set, not mere one of many. --