Date: Mar 5, 2013 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots
WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 5 Mrz., 12:45, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 10:57 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > On 4 Mrz., 23:56, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > What do you think this was a quote of?
> One of my statements.
> > This is my claim, put into the language we
> > have now developed.
> > >Every findable FIS of d is in a findable line of L
> > Clearly,
> Fine. Nevertheless I would like to emphysize the identity.
> Unfindable FIS of d do not correspond to findable lines. As well as
> unfindable lines do not correspond to findable FIS of d.
Only in Wolkenmuekenheim are there any lines of L or FIS of d which are
in principle unfindable.
> > The question is: "For what subsets of lines
> > of L is this still true?" Hence the condition
> > on K
> The question is: How can anybody claim that, in actual infinity, an
> infinite set of lines is required to house all FIS of d???
Because they can prove it! At lest prove it outside WMytheology.
> It is obviously one of the simplest mathematical proofs to show by
> induction: If line n is not the last line, then line n is not
> Therefore, if the set has no last line, then *no* line is required to
> house all FIS of d. A contradiction? Only if "all FIS of d" are
> claimed to exist.
Wrong! While no particular line or set of lines is necessary,
any infinite set of lines is sufficient.
Thus for a SET of lines to "house all FISs of d" ( meaning that each FIS
of d is the FIS of some line of the set) it is both necessary and
sufficient that the set be infinite.
Note that while no particular line or set of lines is necessary, no
finite set of lines is sufficient.
That this simple fact seems well beyond WM's capacity to grasp is a
measure of his mental miasma.
And what about proving that claimed linear function to be a linear