Date: Dec 8, 2012 3:56 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 170
In article

<8fdbe5fd-0568-4163-9913-234b1a029a6b@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 7 Dez., 22:28, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> > In article

> > <3f5b25b6-ae3f-4a92-96dc-49f872d0c...@c16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,

> >

> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > > Correct. That is a valuable recognition! But an infinity that is less

> > > than a larger infinity forces to believe in such crap.

> >

> > So you now publicly admit that your whole "triangle" thing is crap!

> > --

>

> As its existence depends on actual infinity it is obviously a crap.

The existence of actual infinities is irrelevant.

The top vertex and each point on the edges of WM's figure being of any

certain nature, it follows that any bottom points, edge or vertex, must

be of the same nature, but as they cannot be, regardless of whether

actual infinities exist or not, WM's arguments are so full of holes that

there is nothing else left but his arrogance in making that ugly

argument.

Thus there is no way in any mathematics outside of Wolkenmuekenheim that

what WM calls a triangle inside his Wolkenmuekenheim can be a triangle

outside of it.

--