```Date: Feb 12, 2013 5:01 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots

In article <a6904dcf-201a-4340-89fa-3db6bc11de8d@w4g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 12 Feb., 19:41, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> > On Feb 12, 6:29 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> >> > > > Your claim is that there is a line of the list that contains> > > > every FIS of d (there is no mention of all)> > Obviously the list> > 1> 12> 123> ...> > contains every FIS of d in lines.Not if d starts out as 111...> There are never two or more lines required to contain anything that is> in the list.WRONG! SEE ABOVE!> >> > > But you seem to interpret some completeness into "every".> > > Remember, beyond *every* FIS there are infinitely many FISs.,> >> > I am using your claim including the fact that beyond> > *every* FIS there are infinitely many FISs.> > Fine.> >> > I simply note that if line l contains every FIS of d, then> > d and line l are equal as potentially infinite sequences.> > The list is a potetially infinite sequence of lines.> A line is finite.> >> > Your first claim is that there is a line l such that> > d and l are equal as potentially infinite sequences.> > What do you understand by being equal "as potetially infinite> sequences"?We do not understand "potentially infinite" to have any sensible meaning other than "actually infinite".One adequate definition of actually infinite would be    "a non-empty set is infinite if it can be ordered so as    NOT to have a largest member" >. >..> Just that is obviously realized in above list. Every FIS of d is a> line and every FIS of a line is a FIS of d.l1 = 0l2 = 10l3 = 110and so on with line ln = being n-1 "1"'s followed by "0".And let d = 111... with no 0 in it ever. Then no FIS of d is any line and at least one FIS of any line is NOT a FIS of d.Thus WM is TOTALLY!  WRONG!!  AGAIN!!!    AS USUAL!!!! > Everything of d that is in the list is in one line. This line cannot> be addressed.Then it does not exist.> > > You are asserting a contradiction.> > You must say what you mean by being equal "as potentially infinite> sequences".> > You seem again to fall back into actual infinity. Since only actual infiniteness can exist in a well constructed set theory, of course.--
```