```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.--
```