Date: Mar 24, 2013 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224
WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 24 Mrz., 16:59, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 4:30 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > > > > 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
> Wrong. Do you really find it necessary to lie in order to maintain
> your position?
Why not when you do?
> And what is the reason to defend a position that is
> based upon blatant lies?
Our question exactly!
> Given ZFC, everybody can easily see what I
> have shown. Alas, nobody has looked for it hitherto.
No one can see into your Wolkenmuekenheim from outside, and what you
claim does not hold outside your Wolkenmuekenheim.
> > 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?
Neither of them can exist as described above outside Wolkenmuekenheim.
> > 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.
> Well, that is a correct description.
Not when a path is reqequired, as it usually is, to be MAXIMAL, so that
no proper part of a path can be called a path.
So that WM's anti-trees reappear.