Date: Mar 10, 2013 4:35 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots
In article

<ce6b924d-cbbb-41e3-a404-7fb401325079@he10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 10 Mrz., 10:28, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Mar 10, 10:02 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> >

> > > On 9 Mrz., 23:53, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > We will say x is coFIS to (y) iff

> >

> > > > i. We have (x) associated to x and

> > > > (y) associated to y

> >

> > > > ii. For every n, (x) and (y) produce the same

> > > > finite string.

> >

> > > "Every given n" is tantamount to "there is a last given n".

> >

> > I do not talk about "every given n" but about "every n"

> > (this means from 1 to n for every n). Note that

> > "there is a last n" but it is not a findable natural

> > number.

>

> Better say "a not fixable natural number".

> >

> > Note that you do not need the x_n to exist to say

> > something about them.

>

> That is true. For instance we can say that a natural number is either

> even or odd.

Only existing natural numbers need be either,

WM's non-existing naturals can be neither or both.

>

> > For example, you can say no

> > x_n that will ever exist will be equal to 0.

>

> Yes, that is another example.

Not for the von Neumann naturals.

>

> > If you say x is coFIS to y you are saying something

> > about x_n and y_n that may not exist at this time.

>

> That is the hardest problem. There are some properties which can be

> determined (like the examples above). There are other which cannot.

>

> But in every case we know that there is a line of the list that is

> identical with the FIS of d, both existing or not existing yet.

> Identity implis coFISionality. Do you deny this?

But the set of lines and d are not identical at all.

d ha no member which is a line and the set f lines has no member which

is natural, al the lines are lists/sets of naturals, none is a natural

by itself.

Bit in Wolkenmuekenheim there does not appear to be any distinction

between a set and one of its members.

--