Date: Mar 22, 2013 4:24 PM Author: Virgil Subject: Re: Matheology � 224 In article <3fadncP688yJv9HMnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@giganews.com>,

fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote:

> 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.

What WM intends is almost always to obscure everything.

Fortunately for everyone else, only his students are stuck with him.

--