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.