Date: Feb 26, 2013 3:25 AM
Author: namducnguyen
Subject: Re: Matheology ? 222 Back to the roots

On 26/02/2013 1:16 AM, Virgil wrote:
> In article <m%XWs.20125$mC2.392@newsfe29.iad>,
> Nam Nguyen <> wrote:

>> On 25/02/2013 10:25 PM, Virgil wrote:
>>> In article <SDWWs.99982$Hq1.27823@newsfe23.iad>,
>>> Since I said "not always", any such situation shows I am right.
>> I think you misunderstood my point:
>> In the context of language structure truth verification,
>> your original statement would _always_ fail: because for
>> Ex[P(x)] to be true, P(x0) must be true for some _example_ x0.

> To know that something must be true for some x0, it need not be known
> for which x0 it is true, only that it is true for SOME x0. Which was my
> original point!

Then, can you construct a _language structure_ that would illustrate
your point?

There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.