Date: Mar 4, 2013 5:56 PM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On Mar 4, 6:57 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 3 Mrz., 23:35, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Mar 3, 10:56 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.
> > > 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.

>
> > Indeed, but the question is whether there is one single line of the
> > list that contains every FISON.  We know that such a line
> > cannot be findable.  There is the unfindable, variable,
> > a different one for each person, line l_m.  However, calling
> > l_m "one single line of the list" is silly.

>
> On the other hand, you claim


Let K be a (possibly potentially infinite) set of
lines of L. Then

Every FISON of d is in a findable line of K
iff K does not have a findable last line

WM's claim: silly

WH's claim: not silly