```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> lead to a contradiction.-So you believe that we can remove all lines without changing theunion?Remarkable.Regards, WM
```