Date: Mar 22, 2013 2:53 AM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 3/22/2013 1:32 AM, WM wrote:
> On 21 Mrz., 16:41, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 4:11 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> On 21 Mrz., 14:29, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mar 21, 2:11 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 14:02, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> In fact? That's amazing. So we cannot prove that all lines of the
>>>>>>> infinite set of lines are unnecessary?

>>
>>>>>> We can prove that something is true for every
>>>>>> member of an infinite set. We cannot
>>>>>> prove that something is true for the set
>>>>>> itself unless the set is finite.

>>
>>>>> But I am not interested in the set itself. Not at all! My claim is
>>>>> that every member of the set of lines can be removed

>>
>>>> Yes, removed one at a time
>>
>>>>> such that no member remains
>>
>>>> nope, working one at a time you will not get
>>>> to the point that no member remains.

>>
>>> Induction does not need time.
>>> The conclusion from n on n+1, if valid, is valid for every natural at
>>> one instance.

>>
>> Yes, valid for every natural, but not valid
>> for the *set* of all naturals.-

>
> I do not talk about this *set* when removing lines. My proof shows
> that every line can be removed from the list without removing any
> natural number from the list.



You really need to stop using the
word *proof* when you have provided
none by your own ability and, at
best, have provided only the fodder
for anything WH may have managed
to fit into a logical form satisfying
the notion.