Date: Feb 10, 2013 12:40 PM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On Feb 10, 10:51 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 9 Feb., 17:36, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > > > the arguments are yours
> > > > and the statements are yours-

>
> > > Of course. But the wrong interpretation is yours.
>
> > How does one interpret
> >    we have shown m does not exist
> >    (your statement)

>
> > to mean that
>
> >    m might still exist
>
> > ?
>
> TND is invalid in the infinite.
>
> Regards, WM


In Wolkenmeukenheim, we can have
for a potentially infinite set

we know that x does not exist
we don't know that x does not exist

true at the same time.

Strange place Wolkenmuekenheim.