Date: Mar 24, 2013 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: WMytheology � 224
WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 23 Mrz., 23:58, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 10:56 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > On 23 Mrz., 21:54, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > You have agreed that, "under the assumption that actual
> > > > infinity is a meaningful notion"
> > > > you have not shown that we could remove all finite lines
> > > > without changing the union in any way.
> > > You reverse the facts.
> Under the assumption that actual infinity is a meaningful notion, I
> have shown that one can remove all finite lines without changing the
WM has 'shown' nothing, at least nothing to the satisfaction of anyone
> > 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
> > WM: That is clear because my proof rests
> > WM: upon the premise that actual infinity is a meaningful notion.
WM has yet to produce anything that qualifies as a proof outside his
> because actual infinity is not a meaningful notion.
That WM is incapable of thinking of it does not equally cripple the rest
> And I have set out to prove precisely that. Perhaps you have not yet
> fully understood the structure of my proof.
We have yet to see anything of yours with enough structure to be a proof.
> Act. inf. is meaningful ==> Removal of all lines without change is
That may hold in WM's Wolkenmuekenheim, but not elsewhere.
In a saner world than WM inhabits, a set of FISONs has the infinite set
of all naturals, |N, as its union if and only if that set of FISONs is
itself an infinite set.