Date: Mar 22, 2013 5:14 AM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 3/22/2013 4:01 AM, WM wrote:
> On 22 Mrz., 08:19, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.-

>
> And what is in your opinion beyond any finite set of lines?
>
> Do you believe that induction does not hold for all natural numbers?
> Why do you believe that the axiom of infinity, that has the same
> structure, reaches further?



It is not about...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic