Date: Mar 3, 2013 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots
WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 3 Mrz., 17:36, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 12:41 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.
Then is never a set, since its membership is ambiguous.
Either than or is infinitely many sets
> 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.
But the list of lines in never in any one line because for every line
there is necessarly a successor line.
> Unfortunately you are inconsequent.
Unfortunately WM is incompetent.
> 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.
ANY infinite set of lines will suffice to contain all naturals, but no
finite set of lines will suffice.
A fact that is trivially obviously from the requirement that every
natural have a successor natural larger than it.
> Note, this is what can be proven mathematically.
NOTE, what WM claims to be able to prove he never manages to prove.
> Your claim, however, is purely unmathematical and unlogic matheology.
What WM claims and WE object to, that is what is purely unmathematical
and unlogic WMytheology.