In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 9 Apr., 11:24, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 9, 8:56 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > My answer to your question: If not, then removing every line of the > > > collection means nothing remains > > > > Since to remove every line of the collection means to > > remove the collection of all finite lines > > if you remove every line of the collection > > nothing remains. > > Isn't this collection an infinite line?
NO! Its union may be an infinite line but it is a set of only finite lines. > > > > > But then my question remains: Why do you think that an infinite > > > sequence of finite unions has other P-changing properties than an > > > infinite union? > > > > I do not. > > You said that the Binary Tree, when constructed from its FISONs, does > not contain their suprema.
WM's binary trees are not Complete Infinite Binary Trees, since they do not contain any of the paths necessary for such a tree. > > You said that the list > 1 > 1, 2 > 1, 2, 3 > ... > does not contain a line |N, but this list contains an infinite > sequence of finite unions.
But an infinite sequence of finite lines contains only finite lines, not the infinite line which is its limit.
WM AGAIN fails to realize that a strictly increasing sequence can never have one of its members as its limit. > > > > Do you agree with. > > > > If you remove a finite collection of lines > > from D then something remains. > > Yes. > Does WM agree with: A strictly increasing infinite sequence can never have one of its terms as a limit.
Probably not, since what is obvious outside of Wolkenmuekenheim is often kept outside by the impervious walls of illogic WM has surrounded it with. --