```Date: Mar 23, 2013 6:45 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: WMytheology § 224

On 3/23/2013 5:25 PM, WM wrote:> 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.Inclusion-monotonic set theory?Well, THAT changes EVERYTHING!!!
```