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.