Date: Apr 2, 2013 4:47 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 2 Apr., 00:19, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 1, 10:47 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 1 Apr., 15:24, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 24, 7:09 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > > On 24 Mrz., 16:59, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 24, 4:30 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Have you shown that "one can or cannot".
>
> > > > > So WM has made two claims
>
> > > > > Given ZFC: I cannot show if one can or cannot
>
> > > > Wrong. Do you really find it necessary to lie in order to maintain
> > > > your position?

>
> > > WH: this does not mean that one can do something
> > > WH: that does not leave any of the lines of K
> > > WH: and does not change the union of all lines.

>
> > > WM: That is clear because my proof rests
> > > WM: upon the premise that actual infinity is a meaningful notion.

>
> > And for that case my proof is valid. So you are a liar.
>
> WH: this does not mean that one can do something
> WH: that does not leave any of the lines of K
> WH: and does not change the union of all lines.
>
> WM: That is clear- That is clear because my proof rests upon the premise that actual infinity is a meaningful notion. I am glad that you have recognized that.

A ==> B & ~B
implies ~A.

(Newsgroups: sci.logic, sci.math
Von: WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de>
Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
Re: Matheology § 224)

Regards, WM