Date: Mar 25, 2013 8:07 AM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 25 Mrz., 00:49, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > On 24 Mrz., 20:39, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > But if David had left out the world "all", and said merely
> > > "In fact, Aleph_0 lines are required
> > > (necessary sufficient) to contain all of the naturals."
> > > then David would have been correct, since EVERY set of aleph_0 lines is
> > > sufficient but no set of less than aleph_0 lines is sufficient.
> > We know your statements of faith. But where do you get aleph_0 lines
> > without using lines of the infinite set of aleph_0 lines that, as
> > provable in mathematics, are not sufficient?
> Which infinite sets of lines does WM claim are provably not sufficient?
All FISONs are not sufficient, because forall F in the set of FISONs:
There are infinitely many natural numbers not covered by F and all its
predecessors and all its followers.
> THEOREM: To have a subset of the infinite set of lines(FISONs) whose
> union is |N, it is both necessary and sufficient that that subset of
> lines also be infinite.
Nonsense. All FISONs cannot be sufficient, since no FISON is
Corollary: To catch a unicorn it is both necessary and sufficient to
ask an infinity of horses to help.
> This theorem is valid
and its corollary is suitable, to show the strenght of ZFC.