Date: Mar 22, 2013 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224
WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
That is a claim, not a proof, and we have seen no proof of that claim.
And nowhere in either Wolkenmuekenheim or out of it has WM allowed
"an actually infinite list of FISONs as I devised it"