Date: Mar 23, 2013 5:31 AM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On Mar 23, 9:26 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> 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 the
> union?


Nope.

We both agree that you have shown we can remove
any line without changing the union.
No contradiction.
We both agree that you have not shown that we can
do something which leaves no lines and does not
change the union.
A contradiction if you had shown it
but you have not.