Date: Mar 25, 2013 7:28 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article 
<0283d262-f975-4394-bd73-de342d0bf8ba@c6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 25 Mrz., 21:09, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>

> > > 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.

>
> That is so in potential infinity.


I neither know nor care what WM claims goes on in his Wolkenmuekenheim.

But in standard mathematics, what I said above is true, a set of FISONs
containing no FISONs means a union of no naturals.



> There is no sequence that is larger
> than every FISON, but only for every FISON, there is a larger one.
> But in actual infinity, there is a sequence that is larger than every
> FISON.


True, but it is not a FISON.


> But in effect every FISON fails to empty |N.

No one FISON does,
nor do even finitely many of them,
but all infinitely many of them, collectively, do.

At least everywhere outside Wolkenmuekenheim.
--