Date: Mar 24, 2013 4:36 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224
In article

<d2ad6a51-d4e5-4193-8b04-665f330560da@y4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

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

--