Date: Mar 24, 2013 12:59 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 24 Mrz., 16:47, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 4:26 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>

> > On 24 Mrz., 16:13, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 24, 4:03 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > >  Induction proves that every
>
> > > True
>
> > >  and all
>
> > > False
>
> > So you do no longer adhere to ZFC+FOPL?
> > There a proof "for every" is a proof "for all".

>
> However, in WM speak a proof "for every"
> is not always a proof "for all".


That is correct and reasonable, but irrelevant here. This proof is in
ZFC. There for every is same as for all.

Regards, WM