In article <us-dnQ1L8b384vDMnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@giganews.com>, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote:
> 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" > > ...being fulfilled. > > > This > > excludes A as a super set. > > I am a little weak on infinitary combinatorics, > but I think WM got this part correct.
B is a sequence of FISONs, and as such cannot have A as either a member or as a subsequnce. > > > > > Crying, weeping and blubbering does not help.
But WM does it anyway!
> 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?
Inside Wolkenmuekenheim, WM may rule. BUT
Outside Wolkenmuekenheim, no one can be forced to deny the axiom of infinity. --