In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> Am Freitag, 6. Dezember 2013 19:13:07 UTC+1 schrieb Zeit Geist: > > On Friday, December 6, 2013 3:51:28 AM UTC-7, WM wrote: > > > > > Am Donnerstag, 5. Dezember 2013 23:09:54 UTC+1 schrieb Zeit Geist: > > > > > > > > > > > I consider myself to be a Platonic-Formalist. > > > > > > > > > > Platonic? That means all elements and sets exist somewhere? Without the > > > set of all sets, of course. And without the set of all sets without the > > > sets of all sets. And without the set of all sets without the sets of all > > > sets without the sets of all sets. And without ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said that Set of Sets does not exists. > > > > I do know, however, that in ZFC it is Not a Set. > > You do know that the set of sets, although it may exist, is not a set.
Actually, every non-empty set in ZFC is already a set of sets, since every member of a set is set in ZFC. But an arbitrary concatenation of sets may not form a set in ZFC. > > A very fine formulation. Comparable to all rationals differ from d but d does > not differ from all rationals.
Which only happens in odd backwaters like the wild weird world of WMytheology. > >
> > If you believe that Human Beings ( either individually or collectively ) > > can know All Logical truths; you either raise Humans to God-like status, or > > diminish Logic to that of the Finite. > > > > Diminish logic to its realm. That would be a good idea.
Its realm extends far beyond WM's wild weird world of WMytheology. > > > > > > > > It is possible for any Consistent Formal System to Exist ( in "Reality" > > > > ), because the Forms of that Formal System Exist ( in our Minds ). > > > > > > > > > > It is even possible for an inconsistent system to exist in some minds. As in WMytheology > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just because you can't comprehend and understand what other speak of does > > Not make it Contradictory. > > > If something cannot be translated into the language of reasonably intelligent > people that may very well be a good reason check it. But in your case all > lies open: You claim that every node can be eliminated from an infinite path > and nevertheless there remains something.
Unless that tree is a unary tree, it will have more than one path, so removing one path has to leave whatever was not part of that path. --