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