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.