Date: Mar 24, 2013 11:59 AM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On Mar 24, 4:30 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 24 Mrz., 16:19, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Mar 24, 4:09 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > On 24 Mrz., 14:42, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 24, 12:13 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 24 Mrz., 11:02, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 24, 10:23 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 23 Mrz., 23:58, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > 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.

>
> > > > > > > This does not mean that one can really do so
>
> > > > > > It does, however, mean that you have not shown
> > > > > > that one can or cannot.

>
> > > > Have you shown that "one can or cannot".
>
> > > > Yes or no please.
>
> > Please answer the question.
>
> I did so. Given ZFC: one can


So WM has made two claims

Given ZFC: I cannot show if one can or cannot

Given ZFC: I can show that one can

Seems that in Wolkenmuekenheim everything can
change including what WM is able to show.






> Please answer this question (the best way for our readers to
> understand the difference between pot. and act. infinity):
> What is the difference between the Binary Tree that constains only all
> finite paths and the Binary Tree that contains in addition all
> actually infinite paths?


In both cases you have the same nodes so they look identical.
The only difference is that in the second case you consider
some subsets of the nodes to be paths, that are not considered
to be paths in the first case.