Date: Mar 20, 2013 4:27 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224
In article

<a692afc1-337d-47f2-9b7f-2e6f838ff3d0@r8g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,

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

> On 20 Mrz., 19:44, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>

> > > Either there is a list that contains everyting that the list contins

> > > in two or more lines.

> >

> > Since each line has a successor line and is a proper subset of that

> > successor line, the only "escape" is to have a nonempty set of lines

> > with no last line.

>

> What should a missing last line help?

A nonempty set of lines with no last line shows, among other things,

that the empty set of lines will not work.

> As it is not present in the

> list, it cannot change the contents of the list.

On the contrary, a nonempty set of lines WITH a last line necessarily

omits all naturals not in that last line

but a nonempty set of lines WITHOUT a last line doesn't omit the

naturals of any line.

> But every line, that

> is not the last line and, therefore, is not missing, can be made

> missing without changing the contents of the list.

It is still both necessary and sufficient for a set of line/FISONs to

contain all naturals that that set b infinite, thus be both not empty

and not have either a last line or largest FISON.

>

> > > Since contents can only exist in lines, and since every line is

> > > superset to all its predecessors, the proof is correct. It shows that

> > > actual infinity is unreasonable.

> >

> > It does not show any such thing

>

> You could as well refrain from declaming assertions.

Why must we refrain from doing what WM is notorious for doing? Here is

> sci.logic, not spec.tacle.

Wm often makes spectatular claims then spectacularly fails to justify

them.

Like his claim to a linear map from the set of binary sequences through

the reals to the set of all paths in a Complete Infinite Binary Tree.

--