Date: Mar 6, 2013 6:05 AM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On Mar 6, 11:43 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 5 Mrz., 22:40, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Mar 5, 9:53 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.
>
> > Nope. This is my claim, put into the language we
> > have now developed.  It is equivalent to saying
> > that L_m has no fixed maximum value, something we
> > both agree with.

>
> > Indeed our argument is now only over language.
> > We both agree that the line L_m contains
> > every FIS of d, and that only L_m will do.
> > We only disagree about my claim that calling
> > L_m  "a single line of the list" is silly.-

>
> L_m is a single line if m is a natural number.
> Would you prefer to call L_m infinitely many lines?


Nope, I would prefer to call L_m a function
(of time and person). A function may have as
value a "single line of the list"
but calling something that changes a "single line of the
list" is silly.