```Date: Mar 22, 2013 6:33 PM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On Mar 22, 11:10 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> 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 wrongNo, we both agree that the result is correctAnd we both agree that the result does notlead to a contradiction.
```