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

--