Date: Mar 24, 2013 6:16 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article 
<af556b1e-2874-41ec-9821-a4bf61acfad0@7g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 24 Mrz., 16:47, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 4:26 pm, WM <mueck...@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?
> > > There a proof "for every" is a proof "for all".

> >
> > However, in WM speak a proof "for every"
> > is not always a proof "for all".

>
> That is correct and reasonable, but irrelevant here. This proof is in
> ZFC. There for every is same as for all.


But the grammatical rules in ZFC require that the "for every" and "for
all" statements be logically equivalent, so that each such argument can
be equally validly expressed either way.


Which eliminates the ambiguity that WM is working so hard to create.
--