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..
--