Date: Mar 24, 2013 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 3/24/2013 4:13 AM, WM wrote:
> On 23 Mrz., 23:36, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 11:08 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>>> On 23 Mrz., 21:26, William hHughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You claim that no finite line of the set changes the union.
>> There is no single finite line such that the removal of this one line
>> changes the union.
> This holds for every line and all its predecessors, i.e., for the
> whole potentially infinite set
Not when you fail to define your terms.
Crayon marks are not sets.
>>> You claim that when every finite line which does not change the union,
>>> is deleted, then the union is changed.
>> When every finite line with the property that when it alone is
>> removed then the union is not changed, is deleted, then the union
>> is changed.
> That is an unconfirmed statement. And it is wrong, if every well-
> defined set of natural numbers has to have a least element. Do you
> accept this theorem?
> Do you agree that the definition "line of the list that does not
> change the union of all lines" is well defined?
Could you please illustrate what is meant by "well-defined"
One doubts the felicity of your use of the term.