Date: Mar 23, 2013 4:26 PM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On Mar 23, 4:23 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> 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".


True but irrelevant.