Date: Mar 25, 2013 7:50 PM Author: Virgil Subject: Re: Matheology � 224 In article

<8c242cb9-5642-4c5e-bfc7-4470c3202579@k8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 25 Mrz., 20:50, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>

> > > > 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.

Outside of Wolkenmuekenheim

the union of any infinite set of FISONs covers |N,

the union of any finite se of FISONs doesn't.

Inside Wolkenmuekenheim, what goes on has no effect anywhere else.

>

> So, if there are infinitely many FISONs, then one or more of them are

> infinite

Only inside Wolkenmuekenheim, and then only if WM wills it.

> or two or more together reach into the infinite that is

> larger than every single FISON.

Only inside Wolkenmuekenheim, and then only if WM wills it.

> You should proclaim your due faith

> from the pulpit.

My "faith" is that WM has no proofs for his wild ass claims that are

anywhere even close to being acceptable anywhere outside of his hellhole

of Wolkenmuekenheim.

> >

> > While a FISON and all its predecessors are not sufficient, any one

> > FISON together with all its followers, or even any infinite set of

> > follower covers all naturals, at least everywhere outside of

> > Wolkenmuekenheim.

>

> It seems, your brain must be very cloudy (in German wolkig) to believe

> and to herald such nonsense.

What I have just stated and WM has rejected is a whole lot more amenable

to mathematical proof outside Wolkenmuekenheim than any of WMs contrary

claims.

> >

> >

> >

> > > > 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

> > > necessary.

Perhaps WM is not aware of the meaning of the word "necessary" or the

word "sufficient" in English, as only someone totally ignorant of their

meaning could possible be as wrong as WM has just been.

> >

> > So that WM seems to be claiming that more than what is necessary cannot

> > be sufficient.

>

> No. Alas, I see that all elements that you name can be proved to be

> not necessary, so you name only unnecessary elements, believing that

> infinitely many will do what none of them does.

Perhaps WM is not aware of the meaning of the word "necessary" or the

word "sufficient" in English, as only someone ignorant of their meaning

could possible be as wrong as WM has just been.

To have a set containing the first three positive naturals,

having members 1,2,3 and 4 is sufficient but not necessary,

having members 1,and 2 is necessary but not sufficient.

WM really should study this example until he has come to understand it.

--