Date: Feb 28, 2013 4:29 PM Author: Virgil Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots In article

<7a458051-4f30-467f-954a-9688dbd98a4d@h11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

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

> On 27 Feb., 21:28, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Feb 27, 8:21 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> >

> > > Do you prefer your argument?

> >

> > There is no disagreement over the facts.

> >

> > We both agree that there is a natural number

> > valued function of time, m(t), such that

> > at any time t, m(t) is the index of an existing

> > line which contains all existing FIS of d.

> > We both agree that m(t) is not constant.

> >

>

> Until now I was of the opinion that you accept completed infinity.

> There is no m(t).

>

> > You think that describing this situation as

> > "there is a line which contains all FISs

> > of d"

> > is sensible.

>

> Every FIS of d.

In standard languages, including both English and German,

"not all x" and "not every x" both require existence of an x which is

not whatever is under discussion. But in WMytheology this seems not to

be the case.

> >

> > I think that describing this situation as

> > "there is a line which contains all FISs

> > of d"

> > is idiotic.

> >

> > I will not defend my position except to point

> > out that many others agree with me,

>

> That is no argument. Many have believed in witches and have even burnt

> the. Many, many more than are presently believing in finished

> infinity.

That WM is in a tiny minority regarding the nature of infiniteness does

not make him right.

Mathematics will simple pass him by and leave him stuck in his useless

backwater.

>

> > think that your claim

> > "there is a line which contains all FISs

> > of d"

> > means something else,

>

>

> Not all. Every! Again you fall back into actual infinity.

We fall back on the fact that there is provably no line containing every

FIS of d any more that one containing all FISs of d.

For every line there must either be a successor line longer than it, or

that line is a last line and one has an actual finiteness of lines.

> Up to every n, all n are in line n. And more does not exist until you

> go to n+1. Remember Dedekind: We *create* numbers. They are not

> "there" or somewhere else, because your old position is in

> contradiction with the clear fact that the list cannot contain more

> than is contained in one single line.

In reality, unlike in WMytheology, there is no natural number which does

not have a successor.

--