Date: Feb 28, 2013 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots
WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 28 Feb., 22:29, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> These languages are not suitable to talk about mathematical infinity.
They are the languages used by most English speaking and German speaking
mathematicians in this world.
> IN infinite sets "not all x" is a triviality, because "all x" is a
In every standard set theory, one cannot have a set at all without
having all of it. Thus whatever WM allows to go on in WMytheology is not
any form of set theory.
> Even the set "all natural numbers have divisor 1" is wrong
Not outside WMytheology.
> because there is no thing named "all natural numbers".
There is outside of WMytheology. If there is an unambiguous rule for
telling whether a test object is a natural nor not, then there is a set
of ALL the objects satisfying that test. At lest everywhere outside of
> "All natural numbers are positive." False.
Only if one includes 0 as a natural, as in the von Neumann naturals.
> At least completely
> meaningless like "tutum trara is blue".
As meaningless as WMytheology?