On 4/16/2013 6:51 AM, WM wrote: > On 16 Apr., 10:12, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > >> B is, by WM's own definition, an endless strictly increasing sequence >> of FISONs, and as such an endless strictly increasing sequence cannot >> contain a maximal member, nor its limit value, if any. > > Correct. >> >> Since every member of sequence s B is proper subset of A, > > No.
Give WM a proper statement of set theory and get a response based on confusion over the axioms.
> It is clear that every possible sequence of naturals in A is > contained in a line of the table,
"every possible sequence of naturals..."
It is like a prophecy...
> i.e., is an element of B.
"...is an element"
> This > excludes A as a super set.
I am a little weak on infinitary combinatorics, but I think WM got this part correct.
> > Crying, weeping and blubbering does not help. It is simply the case > that the erroneous interpretation of the meaning of the axiom of > infinity is not fit to belong to mathematics.
Axiom of infinity:
There is an inductive set
Denial of the axiom of infinity:
It is not the case that there is an inductive set
How does the latter constitute a corrrect intepretation of the former?