Virgil
Posts:
8,833
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Matheology � 255
Posted:
Apr 23, 2013 5:03 PM


In article <099a4356270548afa8932dfa8f901403@w1g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote:
> On 22 Apr., 21:18, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <a0dc77ed654641c98d898315c71b3...@c9g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 21 Apr., 22:02, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Consider the representation as a table > > > > > > > 1 > > > > > 2, 1 > > > > > 3, 2, 1 > > > > > ... > > > > > n, ..., 2, 1 > > > > > ... > > > > > > > All initial segments of N (including N itself) are in the first > > > > > column, but not in the lines of the table? > > > > > Can you name an n that is in a column but not in a horizontal line? > > > > For any given horizontal line, I can. > > The question is for all horizontal lines. > > > > > If not, why do you believe that the comlums contain more than every > > > horzontal line? > > > > Why do you misrepresent what I said so obviously? > > > > Given any column and any line, > > that column contains numbers not in that line. > > That is not the question.
But it is the answer!
> The question is whether there is a line with all nunbers of the > columns.
That is a different question to which my answer is "No! There is no line with all the number of the columns." > > > > But the union of the set of all columns and the union of the set of all > > lines are the same. > > The union of the set of all lines is a line
If that were so, then WM should be able to give us the number of that line.
> since every line is the > union of all preceding lines. Actually, NO line is equal to the union of all preceding lines.
> > > > > And you have not shown how it is possible to have more naturals in a > > > column than in every horizontal line. Nevertheless you claim to have > > > shown that erroneously. > > > > No! You claim erroneously that I have claimed it. > > But it is your quantifier dyslexia at work again. > > Drop your edrroneous understanding of quantifiers. Answer the > mathematical questions: Those questions do not
> > > > What I actually claimed is that there are more naturals in ANY ONE > > column than in ANY ONE line, but did NOT claim more naturals in all > > columns collectively than in all lines collectively. > > All that is contained in all lines collectively, is also contained in > one single line s_i.
Which line would than be that contains the largest member of the next line ?
Which line, s_i, would it be that can contain i+1 ?
> exist j, k, m, n : m e s_j & ~(m e s_k) & ~(n e s_j) & n e s_k. Only in WMytheology.
If, for each natural number i, s_i = { n in N: n <= i}, then for every h in N, (h in s_i) <==> (h <= i)
Thus WM's "m e s_j & ~(m e s_k) & ~(n e s_j) & n e s_k" says (m <= j) & ( m > k) & (n > j) & (n <= k) or (m <= j) & (k < m) & (j < n) & (n <= k) but (m <= j) & (j <n) => (m < n) and (k < m) & (n <= k) => (n < m) so in WOLKENMUEKENHEIM one has n < n and m < m.
Which claim requires a good deal more proof that WM has supplied. 

