Date: Mar 9, 2013 4:05 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots

In article 
WM <> wrote:

> On 9 Mrz., 14:13, William Hughes <> wrote:
> > WM logic  (all statements are
> >            things that WM agrees with)

> Would you deny or forbid that we have learned a lot about infinities
> in this thread?

It does not appear to me that WM has learned anything at all, at least
anything true, from this thread
> >
> >   No findable line of L is coFIS
> >   with d

> This holds for the actually infinite d. It surpasses all lines.

And there can be no other until WM can show us a natural with no
> >
> >   g is a findable line of L
> >
> >   g is coFIS with d

> There is a g for every FIS of d in potential infinity.
> (Remember: d is nothing but its FISs. Every line is a FIS of d.

WM is again conflating being a member with being a subset.
WM's lines are subsets of d, not members, and d is not the set of its
FIS's or those lines but the union of them.

Until WM can learn to distinguish between members of a set and subsets
of that set, he will never be able to prove anything involving both.

> Nothing of d can surpass every line.

Actually d itself contains every line as a PROPER subset since it
contains the successor of each line as a subset.

> >
> > It is amazing what WM will say.

> Given the writings of matheologians it is not surprising to see how
> difficult it is to bridge the abyss between the infinities and their
> understanding.

WM is incapable of bridging much of anything, even within his
WMytheology, but that alleged "abyss" is miniscule whenever not
magnified totally out of proportion by his WMYTHEOLOGY.

OUTSIDE of WM's logically corrupt WMytheology, sets with the Peano
properties can and do exist. As in ZF or NBG.

That WM cannot impose his corrupt WMytheology on those who are not
dependent on him for grades is a mitzvah.

And where is WM's proof that some mapping from the set of all binary
sequences to the set of all paths of a CIBT is a linear mapping?
WM several times claimed it but cannot seem to prove it.