Date: Feb 11, 2013 4:04 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 214
On 11 Feb., 09:53, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:

> On 2/11/2013 2:39 AM, WM wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

> > On 10 Feb., 23:59, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:

> >> On 2/10/2013 3:55 PM, Virgil wrote:

>

> >>>>> Please explain "existing set".

>

> >>>> An existing set is a set that is finite or potentially infinite.

>

> >>> That would require all of them to already exist, implying that no new

> >>> ones could ever be created, or invented, or discovered.

>

> >>> Thus in WMYTHEOLOGY there can never be anything new.

>

> >> What would be the consequence of that invariance?

>

> >> Every potentially infinite set already exists.

>

> > Who said so?

> > I said if existing, then finite or pot infinite.

>

> You said "A is B". Not "if A, then B"

An existing set is finite or pot infinity. "set" is an object,

"finite" is a property.

My wife is beautiful.

Not every person with the property being beautiful is my wife.

>

>

>

>

>

> > Now you return if pot infinite then existing.

> > Logic?

> > Try to understand: A ==> B does not imply B ==> A.

> > Then you may go on to learn logic step by step, but not before

> > understanding this (small step for mankind, but obviously big step for

> > you).

>

> >> Thus, potential infinity is immanent infinity.

>

> > No.

>

> >> This is Cantor's argument.

>

> > Yes he made the same step. And his followers gladly accepted it. He

> > exchanged quantifyers on his "extended integers":

> > "For every integer n, there exists integer m: m >= n"

> > to

> > "There exists integer m, such that for every integer n: m >= n."

>

> Now that I have figured out what mathematics you

> are invoking, I can answer your assertions concerning

> "exchange of quantifiers".

Better refrain from that attempt until you will have understood how to

distinguish (in k=1 steps) between a noun and an adjective and its

logical relations.

Regards, WM