Date: Mar 22, 2013 6:10 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 22 Mrz., 22:50, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 10:42 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 22 Mrz., 22:31, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 22, 10:14 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 22 Mrz., 21:33, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > 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
>
> > > So stop claiming your proof
> > > means you can do something
> > > that does not leave any of the lines
> > > of K and does not change the union
> > > of all the lines.

>
> > My proof is this: IF there is an actually infinite list of FISONs as I
> > devised it, THEN all lines can be removed without changing the union
> > of the lines.

>
> You have shown that any FISON and all preceding
> FISONs can be removed


given the premise that set |N, the union of all FISONs, is "more" than
every FISON.

>
> You have agreed that you have not shown you can do
> something  that does not leave a FISON
> and does not change the union of all the lines


Yes. And you have approved my proof. But we know both that the result
is wrong, since the list cannot contain more than every line.

This disproves the premise.

Regards, WM