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!!!