Date: Mar 22, 2013 3:19 AM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On Mar 22, 7:38 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 21 Mrz., 16:46, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Mar 21, 2:29 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > On 21 Mrz., 14:02, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > But you think that after all finite and unnecessary lines another one
> > > > > is lurking like a dragon?

>
> > > > Now I think that after any finite set of unnecessary lines has
> > > > been removed, there still remains an unnecessary line.-

>
> > > I know. That's what I wished to prove. In order to believe in the
> > > existence of actually infinite sets, it is necessary to have another
> > > element after all ordinary elements have been removed.

>
> > Nope.  I only talk about removing finite sets of ordinary
> > elements.  I do not talk about removing all ordinary elements.

>
> Do you know that set theory is timeless? Induction holds for all
> natural numbers (not for the set though - but that is out of
> interest). This proves that we can remove all finite lines from the
> list without changing the contents of the remaining list.


No, it only proves that you can remove any finite
set of lines.