Date: Nov 17, 2012 1:00 PM
Author: Uirgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 152

In article 
<0e1157e6-1304-424b-ad8c-d496a7ba3c22@bx4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 17 Nov., 09:26, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>

> > Incidentally, I insist, as a critical point, that we should be using N*, not
> > N, for any "infinite endeavours": asking what happens to the vase in the
> > limit is intrinsically a super-task and then, maybe, I start understanding
> > why set theory (any set theory) compels actual infinities.

>
> Please note: Here I am not dealing with whatever you may propose but
> with set theory and real numbers of analysis as they presently are.
>

Actually WM is not at all dealing with any part of either set theory or
real analysis as they presently are, or as they ever have been, but only
as WM (falsely) imagines them to be.