Date: Mar 24, 2013 5:18 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article 
<313532b8-abcc-40d2-9176-41787e00ce4c@v8g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 24 Mrz., 15:09, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> > On 3/24/2013 4:13 AM, WM wrote:
> >

> > > On 23 Mrz., 23:36, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Mar 23, 11:08 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> > >>> On 23 Mrz., 21:26, William hHughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> You claim that no finite line of the set changes the union.

> >
> > >> There is no single finite line such that the removal of this one line
> > >> changes the union.

> >
> > > This holds for every line and all its predecessors, i.e., for the
> > > whole potentially infinite set

> >
> > Not when you fail to define your terms.

>
> Every definition needs words. Ignorant readers like you have a very
> limited vocabulary only. But it would be too tedious to express myself
> in such a primitive way as might be (but that's not sure)
> understandable by you. Therefore, if you don't understand, stop
> reading my texts.


In proper mathematics, a failure to define one's terms adequately,
particularly when requested to do so, is regarded as a deadly sin.

WM deliberately commits that sin in virtually every post, because his
WMytheological arguments, and he rarely makes any other kind, all
require the deliberate ambiguity that his avoidance of clear definitions
provides.
--