```Date: Mar 22, 2013 3:42 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 3/22/2013 5:14 AM, WM 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.>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, as in the above claim, what WM claims to be the case>>>>> can be proven by induction that holds for every finite line.>>> Every number that belongs to line n belongs to the next lines too.>>>> 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 has been fonuded by Fermat without any> reference to domain. Your "true use" refers to "the only method you> have been taught".I missed this one.Once again, WM is turning back to a timebefore axiomatic mathematics.He just posted 228 in which it is acceptableto have the pure imaginary unit as a number.What then is a number?  If there are differentkinds of numbers, what distinguishes numbers fromnon-numbers?  What do we call a collection of givennumbers that are the same type?  Would that bea number system?  What is the criterion for callingan arbitrary collection of objects a number system?Would that be an arithmetical calculus?Why should any arbitrary collection of objectswith an arithmetical calculus not be called anumber system?
```