Date: Mar 23, 2013 4:26 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 22 Mrz., 23:33, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 11:10 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 22 Mrz., 22:50, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 22, 10:42 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.

>
> > > You have shown that any FISON and all preceding
> > > FISONs can be removed

>
> > given the premise that set |N, the union of all FISONs, is "more" than
> > every FISON.

>
> > > You have agreed that you have not shown you can do
> > > something  that does not leave a FISON
> > > and does not change the union of all the lines

>
> > Yes. And you have approved my proof. But we know both that the result
> > is wrong

>
> No, we both agree that the result is correct
> And we both agree that the result does not