Date: Mar 5, 2013 4:47 PM Author: Virgil Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots In article

<a03c4682-16e0-4285-80ff-e151aaca0537@hq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> 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.)

The above is ambiguous, at least in English, as it is not clear whether

L is being compared with a single FIS of d or the collection of all of

them.

L, being the list of finite initial sequences or FISs of d, is not the

same thing as d itself, as d does not have any FIS as a MEMBER, but only

as a finite subset or finite subsequence.

Wm has often in the past shown a blithe disregard for the distinction

between being a member of a given set and a subset of that given set,

and is now doing it again.

Such distinctions are important outside of WMytheology however much they

are ignored within WMytheology.

> >

> > WM's claim: silly

>

> Only for those who deny the possibility of identity for potentially

> infinite sets.

Outside WMytheology there is no satisfactory set theory allowing

anything like what WM calls "potentially infinite sets".

>

>

> >

> > WH's claim: not silly

>

> more than silly, namely a proof of unquestioning belief in nonsense.

Nowhere nearly as nonsensical as a set of naturals in which some natural

does not have a successor.

> "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.

While the "ALL FIS" may be a bit ambiguous it is trivially true that

EVERY FIS of d is in infinitely many lines of L ( all but finitely many

of them).

>

> 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".

That may be in WMytheology, but not elsewhere

>

> A very instructive example for the detrimental influence of matheology

> on innocent pupils.

WM is the only one here known to be destructive to pupils, by forcing

them to swallow lies..

--