In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 11 Mai, 22:13, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <5c2d1ccc-1763-4048-a153-592bc4153...@k8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > But I can state by pure reason: If we agree that irrelevant lines of > > > the list are irrelevant, then I am right and set theory is wrong. And > > > that is completely satifactory for me. > > > > But what WM calls irrelevant is not irrelevant. > > Not in matheology including far distance actions. But in mathematics > and for every finite n the last line of > > 1 > 12 > ... > 12...n > > is independent of the presence or absence of the preceding lines.
The process by which you get any line is not independe3nt of the prior lines having at one time been in existence, so all those prior lines once existed and thus have become a part of history and cannot be erased from history, at least not outsicde of Wolkenmuekenheim. . > > Regards, WM > > > > That different procedures may have the same limit does not mean that > > their methods of arriving at a limit are irrelevant. > > > > And in all three cases, the last line, whether any other lines are kept > > or not always includes the union of all prior lines of each process as > > a proper subset, so no prior lines are lost,merely incorporated intl the > > last line, and always the limit WM claims is merely the union of all > > lines that are ever used in each process. > > > > That different sequences can have the same limit should not be news to > > anyone who really understands mathematics, but appears to shock WM. > > -- --