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.
--