Date: Mar 23, 2013 6:25 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: WMytheology § 224

On 23 Mrz., 23:15, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <c44d05d0-ed3a-4bc9-8267-bb9d049c2...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > I say that there is no finite line that changes the union. So the
> > union would be the same if there was no finite line.

>
> That conclusion does not follow from that premise, at least not outside
> Wolkenmuekenheim,
>
> Given sets {a,b}, {b,c}, and {c,a}, outside Wolkenmuekenheim, one can
> omit any one of them from their union without eliminating any element
> from that union, so that, by WM's logic, we should be able to eliminate
> all of then and sill have that empty union equal to {a,b,c}.
>

> > So the union would be the same if there was no finite line remaining.

You forget that your sets lack the property of inclusion monotony.
My proof holds for all sets and all their predecessors in the
inclusion-monotonic order. As I cannot believe that you have not
understood that after years of discussing it, I must conclude that you
have run out of arguments, if you ever had them.

Regards, WM