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!!!