```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 todistinguish (in k=1 steps) between a noun and an adjective and itslogical relations.Regards, WM
```