Date: Mar 22, 2013 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: In Matheology � 224, WM is wrong , again, as usual!!!
WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
And WM is wrong , again, as usual!!!