```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.--
```