Date: Feb 23, 2013 7:34 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots

In article 
<c529319d-eb65-469b-8e01-01ec494720d5@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
William Hughes <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 23, 5:18 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>

> >
> > ======================
> >

> > > Can you identify a FIS of d that is not in a line l of L?
> >
> > No
> >

> > > You cannot. Nevertheless d consists of FIS of lines of L, and of
> > > nothing else, by definition and by construction of d.
> > > Or do you object to this fact?

> >
> > No.
> >
> > ===============================
> >
> > Why then are you raising the impression as if you were trying to argue
> > that d is not with *all its existence* in the lines of the list?
> >

>
> I agree that d "with *all its existence*"
> is in the lines of the list.
> I do not agree that this means
> d with all its existence is in
> one line of the list.


WM's "d" is only "IN" the lines of the list if one can somehow include
some sort of union of all those lines as a line itself, which does not
work in my world of standard mathematics.


Note that in standard mathematics
--