Date: Mar 3, 2013 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On 3 Mrz., 17:36, William Hughes <> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:41 pm, WM <> wrote:

> > Why don't you simply try to find a potentially infinity set of natural
> > numbers (i.e. excluding matheological dogmas like "all prime numbers"
> > or "all even numbers") that is not in one single line?

>   the potentially infinite set of every natural number

is always finite - up to every natural number. If you don't like that
recognition, try to name a number that does not belong to a FISON.
This set is always in one line. You should understand that every
number is in and hence every FISON is a line of the list.

Unfortunately you are inconsequent.
You claim that there are infinitely many lines necessary in the list
to contain all natural numbers. But for every of these claimed lines I
can prove that it is not required in that alleged set of lines that
contain all natural numbers.

Note, this is what can be proven mathematically.
Your claim, however, is purely unmathematical and unlogic matheology.

Regards, WM