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


Re: Joel David Hamkins on definable real numbers in analysis
Posted:
Jun 29, 2013 3:28 PM


In article <bbb85bfa7cf742519a9e8279328db3c1@googlegroups.com>, mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote:
> On Saturday, 29 June 2013 00:02:00 UTC+2, Virgil wrote: > > > >> 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. > > When applying matheology.
It was WM himself who argued for consolidating all lines into one line, so he is now calling his own work "matheology".. > > > Which members of N does WM claim are NOT members of any FISON, thus > many FISONs, thus the union of all FISONs? > > The infinitely many F(n) that have n larger than any n ever used
But F(n) is a FISON, not a natural, so that WM has o legitimate answer. > > > > > > "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. > > No, there is only one bus.
Then WM is effectively saying that there is only one FISON.
> If the case of FISONs should be simulated, then > there must be as many avatars as necessary such that every child is with all > its smaller companions in the same bus. In no case you can find two or more > children that are not in one bus.
But if FISONs are like busses or busses are like FISONs then existence of more than one bus would require the same child on every bus, which would require busses within busses and be as selfcontradictory as the rest of WMytheology. > 

