Date: Mar 24, 2013 4:03 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: WMytheology � 224
In article

<b632c1dc-bcb9-4f50-8c0d-34d887141f84@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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

> union.

WM has 'shown' nothing, at least nothing to the satisfaction of anyone

but WM.

> >

> > 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

WMytheological dreamworld.

>

> because actual infinity is not a meaningful notion.

That WM is incapable of thinking of it does not equally cripple the rest

of us.

> 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

> possible

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.

--