Virgil
Posts:
9,012
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: WMytheology � 293
Posted:
Jun 20, 2013 4:03 PM


In article <46c30e154c984bbabf4d9a4c569f5454@hs10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote:
> On 20 Jun., 17:10, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 20, 3:09 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > But, abracadabra, if you union the results of infinitely many unions, > > > then you get the missing aleph_0 numbers. > > > > No. You do not do infinitely many unions. That is nonsense. > > > > You do ONE union. > > You seem to have not yet understood.
On the contrary, FJ understands a great deal better than WM does.
But I enjoy to explain it again, > and again, and again, ... because the story is incredible.
Until WM has repeated his "explanations" an actually infinite number of times, he will convince no one but himself of that which even Brouwer rejects. > > Every set of the sequence > > 1, > 1, 2 > 1, 2, 3 > ... > > is the union of all its predecessors and its last {n}. > > There are infinitely many sets, so there are infinitely many unions. > > None of these infinitely many unions yields N, although every union > adds something.
There is also one single union concatenating all infinitely many of the the infinitely many sets that WM has conceded the existence of.
And it is that one union that proves WM totally wrong. > > After you pause, exhausted, since you failed to get N but got only > sets which a lacking aleph_0 natural numbers
WM may pause exhausted, but others do only one union of a set of infinitely many FISONs to get one resulting set containing all infinitely many FISONs as proper subsets.
That WM is incapable of doing anything so straightforward is one measure of how crooked all things are in Wolkenmuekenheim,
> you pray and do a last > union.
Nope, we only need one union, a first one, of all infinitely many FISONs to get our N.
If none of WM's unions of FISONs get it, WM will never get it. 

