Date: Mar 25, 2013 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224
On 3/25/2013 6:47 AM, WM wrote:
> For every and for all in my example are equivalent. Every and all
> elements of the inductive set of FISONs can be removed without
> changing the union, iff actual infinity exists.
This might be a plausible statement if one
confuses a closure property with the definition
of an operation.
But, only one of us is confused.
That, of course, is me since the theory of monotone
inclusive crayon marks is generally undefined except
for the "creation myth" of Hanching.
An alleged mathematical theory with a creation myth. This
just gets better and better.