Date: Feb 10, 2013 3:21 PM
Author: David Bernier
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the root<br> s

On 02/10/2013 12:40 PM, William Hughes wrote:
> 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.


I have an insight: It is impossible to prove that
the transfinite ("god") does not exist.

dave

[ NB: but proving ZFC inconsistent is not completely out
of the question, although WM does no such thing.]


--
dracut:/# lvm vgcfgrestore
File descriptor 9 (/.console_lock) leaked on lvm invocation. Parent PID
993: sh
Please specify a *single* volume group to restore.