Date: Apr 5, 2013 6:09 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 224

In article 
WM <> wrote:

> On 5 Apr., 22:06, fom <> wrote:
> > On 4/5/2013 11:22 AM, WM wrote:
> >

> > > On 5 Apr., 12:08, William Hughes <> wrote:
> >
> > >> More precisely.  There is an infinite set of lines D
> > >> such that any finite subset of D can be removed.

> >
> > > How do you call a subset of D that has no fixed last element?
> >
> > In set theory it is neither a set or a subset
> > because the question does not make sense.

> In set theory a set can either be bijected with a FISON or not.

But what does it mean for a set to have not "fixed" last element?
Does it men that that set has a non-fixed last element?
While that would be nonsense outside of Wolkenmuekenheim, only WM can
say what is allowed to go on inside Wolkenmuekenheim.
> A subset of D that can be removed without changing the union of the
> remaining elements of D can be defined and makes sense.
> Examples are the list D
> 1
> 1,2
> 1,2,3
> ...
> and the subset of the first n lines for every n in |N.
> So the question makes sense.

And the answer is that any subset of the set of FISONS of |N that is
NOT co-finite in the set of FISONs of |n can be removed without
diminishing the union of the set of remaining FISONs to less than |N.
> > One might compare the remark to a generic set
> > of forcing conditions described by the
> > information content of their initial sequences.

> No claptrap, please.

Why not from others when you are so free with your claptrap?

> Do you reject the theorem that every non-empty set of natural numbers
> has a first element? Do you reject proofs by infinite descente? Do you
> reject mathematics in favour of matheology?

What we DO reject is your WMytheology!