Date: Mar 5, 2013 4:57 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On 4 Mrz., 23:56, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

No, false quote. Every findable FIS of d is in a findable line of L
1
12
123
...,

since L is identical with the FIS of d. (K will not improve anything.)
>
> WM's claim: silly

Only for those who deny the possibility of identity for potentially
infinite sets.

>
> WH's claim: not silly

more than silly, namely a proof of unquestioning belief in nonsense.
"All FIS of d are in infinitely many lines."
Wrong, since infinity does not change the condition that there are
never two or more lines of L that contain more than one single line.

WH's claim is tantamount to the claims: "An infinite sequence of W's
contains an M" or "An infinite sequence of finite natural numbers
contains an infinite narural number".

A very instructive example for the detrimental influence of matheology
on innocent pupils.

Regards, WM