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