Date: Feb 28, 2013 6:22 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots

In article 
WM <> wrote:

> On 28 Feb., 22:29, Virgil <> 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
> faslity.

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?