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


Re: WMytheology � 293
Posted:
Jun 20, 2013 3:50 PM


In article <6a564a31b1354066ad04018b2a86260e@t8g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote:
> On 19 Jun., 23:38, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > The set whose members are {1}, {2}, {3}, ... > > clearly has union set N. > > That is just the question. > > > > But WM claims > > The set whose members are {1}, {1,2}, {1,2,3}, ... > > must have a union set strictly less than N. > > > > What sort of set theory says things like that? > > Matheology.
No! Only WMytheology.
> The second sequence contains sets such that for every set > there are aleph_0 numbers missing. The sequence is strictly > increasing, such that there is never more than one set required to > have accumulated all numbers of the preceding sets. And every set is a > union, such that we infinitely many unions. None of which accomplishes > to yield N.
The union of all of {1}, {1,2}, {1,2,3}, ...accomplishes exactly the same as the union of all of {1}, {2}, {3}, ..., No more and no less, absolutely everywhere except in WM's wild weird world of WMytheology. > > But, abracadabra, if you union the results of infinitely many unions, > then you get the missing aleph_0 numbers.
If anyone but WM unions all infinitely many sets {1}, {2}, {3}, ..., they get N, and since every one of the infinitely many sets, {1}, {1,2}, {1,2,3}, ... is a proper subset of N, unioning all of them cannot give any more than N.
At least in the correct mathematics outside Wolkenmuekenheim. > > That is not correct in mathematics.
It is everywhere outside Wolkenmuekenheim.
Therefore also > > {1}, {2}, {3}, ... clearly has not the union set N  since there is > no set N.
There is everywhere outside Wolkenmuekenheim. > > Look
We have looked, and find that standard math is justified, but WMytheology is not.
Note that even Brouwer admits an actual infinity that WM does not. 

