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 wrong

No, we both agree that the result is correct

And we both agree that the result does not

lead to a contradiction.