Date: Mar 23, 2013 12:40 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 3/23/2013 10:29 AM, WM wrote:
> On 23 Mrz., 14:38, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>> On 3/23/2013 3:26 AM, WM 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
>
> Here he tries to cheat the readers. My statement was: That is clear
> because my proof rests upon the premise that actual infinity is a
> meaningful notion.
>



You respond to *me* over cheating the readers
with truncated responses?

Chuckle.

The only reason you may speak of a "proof" is
because of the extreme patience that WH has
spent trying to find anything that approximates
rational discourse among your statements.