```Date: Mar 25, 2013 4:09 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article <3f89eb43-05c6-4010-9ba2-e37f70d44e01@f5g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 24 Mrz., 23:35, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:> > > > I proved that every FISON and all its predecessors can be removed from> > > the matheological union |N of all FISONs without changing this union.> >> > ANY FISON and all its predecessors can be removed from> > the union |N of all FISONs without changing this union.> >> > But removing every FISON leaves none to form a union.> > Why should any FISON be left?Every natural is in at least one FISON, so  without at least one FISON in that set of only FISONs there is nothing to contain ANY natuals.At least outside Wolkenmuekenheim. > Therefore every FISON can be removed, iffff the union is more than> every FISON.Any one FISON can be removed from a union of infinitely many fisons without affecting their union, but any removal from such an infinite set which leaves only finitely many FISONs left will effect their union.> > >> > > Everybody with a minimum of mathematical knowledge can do so by> > > himself or can at least understand my proof.> >> > We all understand that it is wrong to say, as WM is doing here, that one> > can remove everything and still have something left, at least wrong> > everywhere except in Wolkenmuekenheim.> > The union is maximal. Every FISON that is not maximal can be removedThat would only be true if there were some FISN which were maximal, but there isn't any maximal fison in any infinite set of FISONs.,> since a maximal union cannot be accomplished by non-maximal FISONs.Maybe not in Wolkenmuekenheim, but outside it, the union of ANY set of infinitely many FISONs is a maximal set of naturals, at last until WM can show us a larger set of naturals. > Simple as that!And even simpler outside the corrupting delusions  of WMytheology.--
```