Date: Mar 22, 2013 7:32 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: In Matheology � 224, WM is wrong , again, as usual!!!

In article 
<13427f1d-cb21-4279-9aa2-e052861d86d1@l16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > > That is potential infinity.
> >
> > Nope, that is actual infinity.  (In potential
> > infinity you cannot have a set that is different from
> > finite sets because all sets are finite)-

>
> All sets are finite, but not fixed.


You mean that a set can change its membership?

As far as I know, there is no version of a set theory,
at least none outside of WMytheology,
in which any set is so inconstant as to be able to change its membership.

Any such a "theory", which can only exist in such odd places as
Wolkenmuekenheim, is both a non-set theory and a nonsense theory.





> There is no upper threshold,
> contrary to every finite set.


Then, as a set of naturals, it is necessarily actually infinite, since
it is obviously incapable of excluding any one of an actual infinity of
natural numbers.
And WM is wrong , again, as usual!!!
--