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.