Date: Mar 23, 2013 9:30 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article 
<7656078c-36eb-48b5-8bf2-ce5b0801a563@v20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
William Hughes <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 23, 4:23 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > On 23 Mrz., 15:20, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > > On Mar 23, 3:13 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > On 23 Mrz., 15:01, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Mar 23, 2:43 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On 23 Mrz., 10:31, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > We both agree that you have not shown that we can
> > > > > > > do something which leaves no lines and does not
> > > > > > > change the union.

> >
> > > > > > No, of course we do not.
> >
> > > WH: this does not mean that one can do something
> > > WH: that does not leave any of the lines of K
> > > WH: and does not change the union of all lines.

> >
> > > WM: That is clear
> >
> > > > > WH: this does not mean that one can do something
> >
> > > > Of course we cannot really do infinite things. This is only an
> > > > abbreviation.

> >
> > > > I say that there is no finite line that changes the union.
> >
> > > Correct
> >
> > > > So the  union would be the same if there was no finite line.
> >
> > > Nope, does not follow.
> >
> > It follows in ordinary logic. The negation of "no finite line changes
> > the union" is "at least one finite line changes the union".

>
> True but irrelevant.


The logic anywhere but in Wolkenmuekenheim is:

Given: that deleting anyone set from a union of sets does not decrease
the union the set of remaining sets,

THEN: Decreasing that union will require, if possible at all, deleting
more than one member set, but deleting more than one member set still
may not alsays decrease the union.

Example: 100 different subsets each of 99 elements out of their union of
100 elements. Then the union of the set of any two or more of them
equals the union of the set of all 100 of them.

So here, as ever, WM's set theory sucks.
--