```Date: Feb 24, 2013 5:05 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots

In article <4eb8c096-c690-4f70-bc1b-7b015d4aa61b@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 24 Feb., 00:34, William Hughes <wpihug...@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.-> > So you think that d is in more than one lines. But that is impossible,> because every line of the list contains, by construction, all that the> previous lines contain. What we think is that all your lines are in d, which is, in a sense, only the union of all your infinitely many lines.> And certainly you don't claim that you can> find more than one line that would be required to contain what one> line contains? No one of your lines contains its own successor so no one of your lines can contain the line d which contains all successors. >So how can you support your disagreement? How do you> solve that contradiction?By not entering your WMytheology, which is the only place that those alleged contradictions can exist.--
```