Date: Mar 25, 2013 7:41 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 24 Mrz., 23:10, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <44b2ec5d-75ad-4123-a50d-d6e6362c9...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  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?
>
> ZFC+FOPL? does no support WM's alleged proofs, whether by induction or
> any other method.


What axioms are mis-applied? You can find the axioms here:
https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=showFullRecord&currentResultId=Wolfgang+M%C3%BCckenheim%26any&currentPosition=4
>
> > 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"


Obviously, the FISONs form an inductive set.
And no difference between "all" and "every".
>
> > Unfortunately current
> > logic does not distinguish.

>
> Logic does,


Above you wrote the contrary.
Your memory seems very unreliable.

Regards, WM