In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 June 2013 20:21:28 UTC+2, Virgil wrote: > > > The axiom of choice was not assumed as an axiom as a truth. > > > > How or why it was assumed is of no consequence
But that it was assumed true while WM assumes it false means that WM's analysis of the proof is poofed.
> Zermelo's "proof" is not important
Then why is WM trying to make it important?
The mathematics OUTSIDE of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, requires that a limit of a STRICTLY increasing endless sequence, CANNOT be a member of that sequence.
But INSIDE of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology WMe has that the limit of a strictly increasing endless sequence of FISONs , if it is to exist at all, MUST be a member of the sequence.
Thus in WM's WMytheology there must be an end, or largest member for any sequence of FISONs. This requires the existence of a natural number which has no successor natural, and cannot happen anywhere outside of the wild weird world of WMytheology. --