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!!!

--