Date: Mar 23, 2013 11:23 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 23 Mrz., 15:20, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 3:13 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>

> > On 23 Mrz., 15:01, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 23, 2:43 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > > On 23 Mrz., 10:31, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > We both agree that you have not shown that we can
> > > > > do something which leaves no lines and does not
> > > > > change the union.

>
> > > > No, of course we do not.
>
> WH: this does not mean that one can do something
> WH: that does not leave any of the lines of K
> WH: and does not change the union of all lines.
>
> WM: That is clear
>

> > > WH: this does not mean that one can do something
>
> > Of course we cannot really do infinite things. This is only an
> > abbreviation.

>
> > I say that there is no finite line that changes the union.
>
> Correct
>

> > So the  union would be the same if there was no finite line.
>
> Nope, does not follow.


It follows in ordinary logic. The negation of "no finite line changes
the union" is "at least one finite line changes the union". But this
is excluded by my proof.

It seems you wish to refrain from two-valued logig. Is there a third
possibility in your logic, different from the alternatives "no line"
and "at least one line"?

Regards, WM