```Date: Mar 23, 2013 8:07 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: WMytheology � 224

In article <b0c1df1e-98a2-4e68-848f-cd4277e7156d@h7g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.Since that property was not explicitly required in WM's argument, it is irrelevant to WM's claim, which is thus proven false.And any logic, such as that of WMytheology, which allows proof of WM's false conclusion also allows proof of its denial, and proof of "P and not P". > My proof holds for all sets and all their predecessors in the> inclusion-monotonic order.Not outside of Wolkenmuekenheim. Outside of Wolkenmuekenheim, it does not even qualify as nonsense. > As I cannot believe  If there is anything beyond WM's ability to believe, at lest within the boggling boundaries of  Wolkenmuekenheim, we have yet to see it anywhere esle but obscured by the oppressive opaqueness of Wolkenmuekenheim.--
```