Date: Mar 24, 2013 6:10 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article 
<44b2ec5d-75ad-4123-a50d-d6e6362c94c8@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 24 Mrz., 16:13, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 4:03 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >
> >  Induction proves that every
> >
> > True
> >
> >  and all
> >
> > False

>
> So you do no longer adhere to ZFC+FOPL?


ZFC+FOPL? does no support WM's alleged proofs, whether by induction or
any other method.

> There a proof "for every" is a proof "for all".

Induction only proves

"For every member of some inductive set" and "for all members of that
inductive set"

> Unfortunately current
> logic does not distinguish.


Logic does, but WM doesn't.
>
> Regards, WM

--