Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 293
Replies: 44   Last Post: Jun 27, 2013 2:25 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Virgil Posts: 8,833 Registered: 1/6/11
Re: WMytheology � 293
Posted: Jun 22, 2013 1:18 PM

mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:

> > Is every natural number in some FISION?
> >Yes.

>
> In a self-contradictory theory you cannot conclude anything from a

It is only within WM's wild weird world of WMytheology that any such

Outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, any union of any
family of sets, like the union of the family all FISONs, contains all
members of all member of that family.

Challenge to WM: Since WM claims the the union of all FISONs does not
contain all naturals, he is also claiming the existence of a natural not
in any FISON, so we challenge him to name any such natural.
>
>

> > So, is every natural number in the Union of the List of each, every, and
> > all FISIONs?
> > Yes.

>
> Is every FISON lacking a set of aleph_0 natural numbers?
> Yes.
> Are there two FISONs which are not in the well-order of all FISONs by
> inclusion monotony?
> No.
> Can a union over two FISONs supply more naturals than are in one FISON?
> No

But any union over infinitely many FISONs can, and does, provide more
that any union over only finitely many FISONs, and s provides all of |N.
>
> Why should these statements be less true than yours? Because yours are
> historically older?

Beccause WMytheology is inherently corrupt.
>
>
> The two statements:
> 1) Every natural number is in some FISON
> and
> 2) Not every natural number is in some FISON
> are both of same truth-level.
>
> None of them excludes the other because the theory is self-contradictory.