Date: Feb 25, 2013 9:08 PM Author: Virgil Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots In article

<5576043b-977f-4bd0-a2ac-3717ca1b4a20@d11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 25 Feb., 13:46, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Feb 25, 1:09 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> >

> > > On 25 Feb., 12:20, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > Only those people who care

> > > > about unfindable natural numbers (a group that

> > > > includes WM but not me) are interested

> >

> > > No? The numbers of those lines that contain what, according to your

> > > assertion, cannot be contained in one line, are unknowable

> >

> > [The term is "unfindable"]

>

> Wrong. You can easily define what line is requires, bamely the first

> line of your asserted set of infinitely many lines that are necessary

> to contain more than one line can contain.

>

> You cannot know that first line, because every line can be proven to

> be *not* such a line.

In a world more sane than WMytheology, if every line is not a last line,

there is no last line.

>

> Your assertion can be proven wrong for *every* line. But you believe

> that it is right for infinitely many? Mathematics looks different!

What is wrong for individuals can be right for a set of those

individuals.

> >

> > Nonsense. The "numbers of those lines that contain what, according to

> > your

> > assertion, cannot be contained in one line" is a set of numbers,

> > no single number has this property.

>

> I know that every number n has the property that the line l_n contains

> all that its predecessors contain. Note, these n are numbers.

Find us one that contains all that its successors do.

>

> > The set is the potentially

> > infinite set {1,2,3,...}. All of these are "findable". I do not use

> > and am not interested in "unfindable" natural numbers.

>

> Once upon a time you have been asserting that more than one line are

> necessary to contain all that can be contained of d.

If, as in your examples, each line, l, is a FIS of d, but not all of d,

then no one line can contain what the next line contains, and every next

line is necessary to get all of d.

> This collection

> of lines may be a set - it does not matter. But every set of lines of

> L has a first element. You cannot name the first element l_n, you

> cannot name the n. And that is a number.

And that is all irrelevant to the fact that you cannot have it all when

you insist on stopping before getting it all.

WM's world does not allow induction as a method of proof, because it

always requires stopping after a finite number of steps.

--