```Date: Mar 22, 2013 10:19 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article <f6mdnWDVEcc1eNHMnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@giganews.com>, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote:> On 3/22/2013 5:11 PM, William Hughes wrote:> > On Mar 22, 10:49 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> >> > <snip>> >> >> All sets are finite, but not fixed.> >> > I did not claim that all sets in> > Potential infinity are fixed.> > They are finite and thus not> > different from finite sets.> >> > WH: Infinite sets are different from finite sets> > WH: but they do not contain anything> > WH: "beyond any finite set".> >> > WM: Of course.> >> >> There is no upper threshold,> >> contrary to every finite set.> >> > More Wolkenmuekenheim logic> >> > Every finite set has an upper threshold.False, since not all finite sets are ordered.> >> > A potentially infinite set> > does not have an upper thresholdIn order for something to be a set is any standard set theory, its membership cannot be ambiguous, each object must be unambiguously a member of the set or unambiguously not a member of that set.Thus what WM calls his sets "with no upper threshold" are not sets at all, at least not anywhere outside of Wolkenmuekenheim. > >> > A potentially infinite set is finite.So what WM claimes as his " potentially infinite sets" are not sets at all anywhere outside Wolkenmuekenheim.> >> > And, when properly developed in a constructive> framework, the objects to which that statement> might apply are clearly understood as such.They are all  non-sets.--
```