Virgil
Posts:
6,993
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Joel David Hamkins on definable real numbers in analysis
Posted:
Jun 28, 2013 6:02 PM


In article <7fb02acbb61842faa69f2fd2995f20b0@googlegroups.com>, mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote:
> On Friday, June 28, 2013 1:34:49 AM UTC7, muec...@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote: > > On Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:54:40 PM UTC7, muec...@rz.fhaugsburg.de > > wrote: > > > > >> IF: An infinite collection of finite decimal sequences, when written in > >> one line, makes an actually infinite collection, > > > >> THEN: an infinite collection of finite decimal sequences written in > >> different lines does the same. > > > >> (Unioning over subsets cannot not extend a set.) > > > > There is no extension there, just consolidation. > > Every F(n) is in some line. More cannot be consolidated.
According to your own analysis, they can further be consolidated into ONE AND THE SAME line.
Which, at least outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, is more consolidated that merely each in "some line" > > > Just like U( { FISON } ) = U( { j  0 <= j <= n, n e N }) adds nothing new, > > it just puts them all in the single set N. > > A union over subsets cannot put more than has already been there, because for > every n, there has been FISON(n) in some line. Whether you call it > consolidation or else: getting more than every FISON remains matheology > without mathematical foundation.
Which members of N does WM claim are NOT members of any FISON, thus many FISONs, thus the union of all FISONs? > > > "Each child is on some bus" does not, necessarily, imply that "All children > > are on some bus". > > Here we have a different situation: Each child is in one bus together with > all smaller children. Try to figure out how many buses are required > respectively possible.
That means that, at least in WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, some children must be simultaneously on more than one bus. School traffic patterns in WM's wild weird world of WMytheology must be vicious! > > Regards, WM 

