Date: Mar 24, 2013 10:09 AM
Author: fom
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.

> 1

>

> 1

> 1,2

>

> 1

> 1,2

> 1,2,3

>

> ...

>

>

>>

>>> 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"

here?

One doubts the felicity of your use of the term.