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