```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 theword *proof* when you have providednone by your own ability and, atbest, have provided only the fodderfor anything WH may have managedto fit into a logical form satisfyingthe notion.
```