In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Friday, May 2, 2014 2:46:55 PM UTC-4, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > On Friday, 2 May 2014 20:35:19 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But we know that every expression that can appear in eternity in the > > > > whole, possibly infinite, universe belongs to a countable set. > > > > Therefore also every expression that can appear in the mathematical > > > > discourse belongs to a countable set. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do "we" know this? Is it too much to ask for a formal proof? > > > > > > > > Yes, such things usually are learned before formalism are used to veil > > mathematical facts. Every person discussing here should know it. > > > > So, you don't have formal proof. Just more hand-waving. Thought so. > > When it comes to foundational issues, everything must eventually be formally > defined or proven. > > So, get busy, WM! Start by fully understanding what a formal proof is. > Imagine that a computer, without any knowledge of the outside world is > checking your proof against a pre-determined list of rules and axioms. Every > line must be justified by citing exactly one of them. My software may help > you help you get into the right mindset.
Is it not possible to have one line involving more than one rule and/or axiom at a time in your system?