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.
--