Date: Mar 22, 2013 7:10 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 3/22/2013 5:10 PM, WM 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, since the list cannot contain more than every line.
>
> This disproves the premise.


This merely proves what WH said before concerning
your likes and dislikes.

"But we both know..."

is not the same as

"I have demonstrated how we know..."