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.