In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 7 July 2013 23:45:46 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote: > >> You rather have proven that you don't know what logic is, and what a proof > >> is. > Okay, WM Junior, you are saying the infinite should be just like the > >> finite. > > So said Leibniz and subtracted series with infinite limits. > > > You and WM are the idiots for thinking so. > > Look at this simple piece of logic: If I remove a number ONLY after another > one has been inserted, then even infinitely many transactions will NEVER show > an empty set.
WM's excessively finitist WMytheology is far too restrictive and self-contradictory to allow for a proper analysis of this problem.
Let WM answer this: If every insertion of a natural number into an initially empty vase before noon is followed by its removal, also before noon, as is the case here, which natural numbers does WM claim will remain unremoved at noon?
And until WM can name such a natural number, he has no case. --