Date: Feb 5, 2013 5:18 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 203

In article 
<f83e61df-5067-42da-8462-b149e0431042@y9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 4 Feb., 16:21, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 3:25 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >

> > > I only wanted to clarify that this feature is common to all sets of
> > > infinite strings (or better: to every) - only in case you erroneously
> > > would try to distinguish different infinities.

> >
> > According to you there is a sense of
> > ``there is no list of X``
> > which is true for some potentially infinite sets
> > and not true for others.

>
> You should state for what infinite sets and with which quantifiers?
> There is no complete list of any infinite set since there is no
> complete infinite set to enumerate it. So "there is no list of X" is
> true for every potentially infinite set.


Since there is no such thing as a potentially infinite set that is
neither actually infinite nor actually finite, at least in any standard
set theory, so WM is off in his wild weird world of WMytheology again.
Or does WM imagine that he can produce a complete axiom system or set of
rules for his mythical set theory?
--