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