In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 12 Mai, 22:20, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <492841d0-4089-4ab2-818b-7505c36a6...@12g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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 independent of the prior > > lines having at one time been in existence, so all those prior lines > > once existed > > But there is no difference for a line whether or not the preceding > lines continue to exist.
Once it has come into existence, its continued existence may not be needed, but if it never had existed, neither could its successors.
In a sane world the existence of 2 requires a prior existence of 1, and existence of any natural n + 1 requires a prior existence of n.
But Wolkenmuekenheim is clearly not such a world. --