In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 July 2013 23:49:59 UTC+2, Virgil wrote: > > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > > > > email@example.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, 9 July 2013 22:19:00 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote: > > > > > > I have have produced the necessary function to prove the case. > > > > > > > > > > Not my case. I keep at least one number. Is set theory incapable of > > > > > describing that case? > > > > > > > > Until you have, and post, a unique numeral for than number, there is no > > > > reason to suppose that any such number exists > > There is no such number existing. But there is my clause existing that I will > never give away the last number.
Your clause existing does not prove that that what it claims is true. Considering WM's long record of false claims, it rather indicates the opposite.
What don't you understand with this clause? > > You understand that this clause kills all Cantorism and matheology since > every young student who has not been perverted by "modern logic" will of > course see that this clause is possible.
Outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, that clause is just another of WM's unproven and unprovable claims. > > Of course, for you, I am very sorry, it is to late. You will never change > your mind. You will never recognize that Cantor gave a terrible stroke to > mathematics from which it will recover only after decades.
In any choice between mathematics and WM. everyone who does not depend on WM for a passing grade will side for mathematics against WM. --