Date: Mar 22, 2013 5:19 AM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 3/22/2013 4:05 AM, WM wrote:

> On 22 Mrz., 08:30, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Mar 22, 7:32 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.

>>

>> No your proof shows that *any* *one* line can be removed from the

>> list.

>> However, you are talking about removing more

>> than one line, i,e. a *set* of lines.

>

> No, I do not speak of a set when I say one, two, or three or

> infinitely many lines. Don't confuse the set of all lines with all

> lines of the set.

>

So, WM does not speak of a set of objects when he

speaks of a multiplicity of objects.

This clarifies that his idiolect does not reflect

consistent use of singular terms.

Thus, his readers should not believe that what they

read is what he intends.