```Date: Mar 22, 2013 5:14 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 22 Mrz., 21:33, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 22, 7:21 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> <snip>>> > Line l_n and all its predecessors do not in any way influenturece (neither> > decrease nor increase) the union of all lines, namely |N.>> Yes, given any set of lines K, every element of K has> the property that it can be removed without changing> the union of all lines. Yes, the set of lines that> has this property is the complete set K.No doubt.>> This is the result of your proof.>Given the premise is valid.> No, this does not mean that one can do something> that does not leave any of the lines of K> and does not change the union of all lines.That is clear because my proof rests upon the premise that actualinfinity is a meaningful notion. I am glad that you have recognizedthat.A ==> B & ~Bimplies ~A.That is basic logic.> You have not proved,> and cannot prove the contrary.> You can only state that it is obvious.What contrary should I have proved or have intended to prove? I provenjust what you said.> I know you do not like this resultYou are in error. I like just this very result.> (it cannot> be true for finite sets)Of course not. The premise is actual infinity. That is obviously notpossible in finite sets.> but it is something> you do not like, not a contradiction.?Regards, WM
```