Date: Mar 22, 2013 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224
WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 22 Mrz., 10:49, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> > On 3/22/2013 4:13 AM, WM wrote:
> > > On 22 Mrz., 09:54, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > >> On 3/22/2013 1:38 AM, WM wrote:
> > >>> This proves that we can remove all finite lines from the
> > >>> list without changing the contents of the remaining list. And this is
> > >>> remarkable, isn't it?
> > >> Since WM also claims that all the lines of that list are finite lines,
> > >> WM is now claiming one can trow out the entire contents of a list and
> > >> still have the entire original list in place.
> > > That is a consequence of the completed infinity of set theory.
> > He is referring to your claims
> I know. They are a consequence of finihed infinity.
WMs claims above are, as usual, a consequence only of his arrogant
And are, as usual, WM's claims are obviously false wherever WM is unable
to bend the rules of logic to fit his whimsy. Just most of as what WM
claims as proofs are equally false wherever WM is unable to bend the
rules of logic to fit his whimsy.
> > >> Unfortunately, as in the above claim, what WM claims to be the case
can be proven false.
> > It should be observed, once again, that the most WM is ever referring
> > to with statements like this is the form of the domain for an
> > induction rather than any true use of inductive proof.
> True use of inductive proof
appears to be well beyond WM's grasp.
> > > If you are of different opinion