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.
--