Date: Apr 2, 2013 6:10 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224
In article

<ee48cc6a-3eec-4fd0-88d7-b299bf8532a7@x13g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

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

> 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.

And only in Wolkenmuekenheim does A ==> B & ~B imply A.

--